See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10773186

Organization Structure as a Moderator of the

Relationship Between Procedural Justice,
Interactional Justice...
Article in Journal of Applied Psychology May 2003
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.295 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

READS

198

795

2 authors:
Maureen Ambrose

Marshall Schminke

University of Central Florida

University of Central Florida

54 PUBLICATIONS 3,707 CITATIONS

52 PUBLICATIONS 2,739 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Maureen Ambrose on 15 March 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue
are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Journal of Applied Psychology

2003, Vol. 88, No. 2, 295305

Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

0021-9010/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.295

Organization Structure as a Moderator of the Relationship Between

Procedural Justice, Interactional Justice, Perceived Organizational
Support, and Supervisory Trust
Maureen L. Ambrose and Marshall Schminke
University of Central Florida
Organizational justice researchers recognize the important role organization context plays in justice
perceptions, yet few studies systematically examine contextual variables. This article examines how 1
aspect of context organizational structureaffects the relationship between justice perceptions and 2
types of social exchange relationships, organizational and supervisory. The authors suggest that under
different structural conditions, procedural and interactional justice will play differentially important roles
in determining the quality of organizational social exchange (as evidenced by perceived organizational
support [POS]) and supervisory social exchange (as evidenced by supervisory trust). In particular, the
authors hypothesized that the relationship between procedural justice and POS would be stronger in
mechanistic organizations and that the relationship between interactional justice and supervisory trust
would be stronger in organic organizations. The authors results support these hypotheses.

and supervisory social exchange is influenced by the structure of

the organization.

Organizational justice research has flourished during the last 20

years. Until recently, this research has focused primarily on establishing the direct effect of various types of justice on outcomes;
however, the boundary conditions of these effects has remained
relatively unexamined. Recently, Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel,
and Rupp (2001) suggested that organizational justice researchers
would be well served to examine moderators, noting the conceptual advances such research provides. Cropanzano et al.s belief
about the potential benefits of examining moderators is consistent
with recent meta-analyses on organizational justice. These metaanalyses suggest that the explanatory power of moderator variables
is likely to be strong (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt,
Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). For example, Colquitt et al.
found that study artifacts rarely explained more than a third of the
variation in meta-analytic correlations between justice variables
and outcomes, suggesting the existence of important moderators.
In this study, we consider one such moderator: organizational
structure.
In this article we explored the moderating effect of organizational structure by building on two recent findings in organizational justice research: that organizational structure affects justice
perceptions (Schminke, Ambrose, & Cropanzano, 2000) and that
different forms of justice differentially affect outcomes through
their effect on organizational and supervisory social exchange
relationships (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002). This study integrated these two
lines of justice research by suggesting that the relative impact of
procedural and interactional justice on the quality of organizational

Organizational Structure
Organizational structure, defined as the recurrent set of relationships between organization members (Donaldson, 1996, p.
57), is one of the most ubiquitous aspects of organizations (Clegg
& Hardy, 1996). Donaldson noted that structure includes but is
not limited topower and reporting relationships such as those
identified in organization charts, behaviors required of organization members by organizational rules, and patterns of decision
making (e.g., decentralization) and communication among organization members. Further, it encompasses both formal and informal
aspects of relationships between members.
Research has demonstrated that organizational structure interacts with a variety of factors to influence organizational performance. These factors include environmental change (e.g., Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967), organizational size (e.g., Pugh, Hickson,
Hinings, & Turner, 1969), organizational production technology
(e.g., Perrow, 1967; Woodward, 1965), and organizational strategy
(Chandler, 1962). Thus, structure provides a natural choice to
consider in exploring moderating effects.
The most prevalent distinction for describing fundamental differences in organizational structure is that of mechanistic and
organic structural forms (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Slevin & Covin,
1997; Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994). Mechanistic structures are
characterized as rigid, tight, and traditional bureaucracies. In
mechanistic settings, power is centralized, communications follow
rigid hierarchical channels, managerial styles and job descriptions
are uniform, and formal rules and regulations predominate decision making. By contrast, organic organizations are characterized
by flexible, loose, decentralized structures. Formal lines of authority are less clear, power is decentralized, communication channels
are open and more flexible, and formal rules and regulations take
a back seat to adaptability in helping employees accomplish goals
(Burns & Stalker, 1961; Khandwalla, 1977; Lawrence & Lorsch,

Maureen L. Ambrose and Marshall Schminke, Department of Management, University of Central Florida.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Maureen L. Ambrose, Department of Management, University of Central Florida, P.O. Box 161400, Orlando, Florida 32816 1400. E-mail:
maureen.ambrose@bus.ucf.edu
295

296

AMBROSE AND SCHMINKE

1967). It is important to note that these two structural forms

represent ends of a continuum, not a dichotomy. No organization
is perfectly organic or mechanistic; most display some characteristics of both, and intermediate stages exist between the two
archetypes.
Research has demonstrated that organizational structure affects
organizational performance (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Jennings &
Seaman, 1990; Parthasarthy & Sethi, 1993). Structure has been
shown to influence individual-and team-level outcomes as well.
For example, organic structures have typically been associated
with increased job satisfaction (Meadows, 1980a; Rahman &
Zanzi, 1995), team innovation (Meadows, 1980b), organizationbased self-esteem (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989),
and learning (Slevin & Covin, 1997). Turban and Keon (1993)
found that structure moderated the relationship between individuals personality characteristics and job choice. In this study, we
also considered the moderating effect of structure. In particular, we
examined the effect of structure on the relationship between justice
perceptions and social exchange relationships.

Organizational Justice and Organizational Structure

Research on organizational justice has thrived in the last 30
years. Although this research is voluminous (for reviews, see
Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Konovsky, 2000), there is strikingly little research on the role that organizational contextwhich
includes organizational structureplays in determining perceptions of fairness. This omission is particularly surprising in that
seminal work on procedural justice explicitly has recognized the
importance of context. For example, Leventhal (1980) stated that
different procedural rules may be more or less important in different situations. Lind and Tyler (1988) also acknowledged the
importance of context and recommended examining contextual
variables. More recently, Tyler (1996) concluded that different
criteria are used to judge the fairness of procedures in different
contextual settings.
Some conceptual work has specifically considered the effect of
organizational structure on perceptions of organizational justice
(Greenberg, 1993; Keeley, 1988; Shepphard, Lewicki, & Minton,
1993). This work has suggested that individuals sense of justice is
partially a product of the organization and its structure. For example, Sheppard et al. (1993) suggested that the structure of some
organizations makes them systematically fair, allowing participation, providing due process, and so on, whereas the structure of
other organizations makes them systematically unfair. Greenberg
(1993) suggested that there are ways of structuring organizational
contexts such that procedural and distributive justice are obtained.
Thus, structural characteristics of organizations, like rules, power
relationships, and opportunities for voice, should play a role in
determining fairness. Likewise, Cropanzano and Greenberg (1997)
suggested that organizational environments affect the relative
weights and specific forms (p. 329) that procedural rules take in
determining justice judgments.
Most recently, Ambrose and Schminke (2001) building on
Leventhals (1980) work discussed the relationship between organizational structure, justice, and ethics. Leventhal maintained
that different procedural rules may be given different weights and
that the relative weight of procedural rules may differ from one
situation to the next (p. 46). Ambrose and Schminke proposed

that the criteria on which procedural justice judgments are based

will vary as a function of organizational structure.
Leventhals (Leventhal, 1980; Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980)
analysis of procedural justice did not distinguish between procedural and interpersonal dimensions of justice because the interpersonal distinction was made by later justice researchers introducing
the concept of interactional justice (Bies, 1987; Bies & Moag,
1986). However, other researchers have suggested that context
should influence the relative importance of procedural and interpersonal aspects of fairness. For example, Tyler and Degoey
(1995) demonstrated that the relative influence of structural (process) and relational (interpersonal) attributes on justice judgments
varied across settings.
We agree with this premise; different justice criteria will be
differentially important under varying circumstances. However,
we extend Leventhals (1980) and Tylers (1996) logic. We suggest that different forms of justice will be differentially important
under varying conditions. Just as Leventhal suggested that in some
situations certain rules are more influential in how individuals
assess procedural justice, we suggest that in some situations certain
forms of justice are more influential in how individuals assess their
relationship with their organization. In particular, we argue that
under certain structural conditions, procedural fairness will be
most salient to individuals. Under other structural conditions, we
expect individuals will focus on interactional justice.
Although substantial theoretical work has considered the relationship between organizational structure and justice, little empirical research has done so. The single empirical study that explicitly
examined organizational structure and justice (Schminke, Ambrose, & Cropanzano, 2000) explored direct (main) effects of
several structural dimensions on justice perceptions. Schminke et
al. found that more decentralized organizations were perceived as
more procedurally fair than centralized organizations and that
smaller organizations were perceived as more interactionally fair
than large organizations.
We believe that this research reflects an important first step in
understanding the relationship between structure and justice; however, our interest is somewhat different than that of Schminke et al.
(2000). First, rather than considering separate aspects of organizational structure (e.g., centralization, formalization, size), we are
interested in a more holistic assessment of structure as mechanistic
or organic. Second, whereas Schminke et al. (and previous justice
researchers) focused on how structure affected perceptions of
fairness, we focus on how structure affects the relationship between fairness and outcomes. Thus, rather than exploring the direct
or main effects of structure on fairness perceptions, our focus is on
the moderating effects of organizational structure. Toward this
end, as we noted above, we extend Leventhals (1980) logic to a
consideration of the relevance of different types of organizational
justice in different structural contexts. Specifically, we are interested in the effect of organizational structure on the relationship
between justice and social exchange relationships.

Procedural Justice and Mechanistic Structures

Ambrose and Schminke (2001) discussed the effect of organizational structures on procedural fairness by exploring the relationship between structure and each of Leventhals (1980) six
procedural fairness rules. On the basis of Leventhals framework,
Ambrose and Schminke suggested that in mechanistic organiza-

STRUCTURE AND JUSTICE

tions, five rules that reflect formal aspects of procedures consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, and representativenessreceive the most weight. They concluded that
procedural justice is more relevant in mechanistic organizations
than in organic organizations.
Consistent with the argument of Ambrose and Schminke (2001)
is the assertion of Leventhal et al. (1980) that the rules that are
consistent with system goals become the standard by which fairness is evaluated. Specifically, Leventhal et al. (1980) stated that
procedures that facilitate system goals will receive greater weight.
Further, these procedures will come to be seen not simply as
functional, but as right and good . . . [justified] on moral as well
as pragmatic grounds. Procedures and distributions that are favored for practical, utilitarian reasons come to be supported by a
network of moral values that defines those procedures and distributions as fair (p. 196).
A central goal of mechanistic organizations is to eliminate the
human element from decision making (Weber, 1947) by relying
more on formal rules and procedures. Therefore, in mechanistic
organizations, formal procedures will be seen as the standard by
which fairness should be evaluated, and individuals justice concerns will focus on procedural justice.

Interactional Justice and Organic Structures

The central goal of an organic organization differs from that of
its mechanistic counterpart. Organic organizations are based on
interpersonal transactions. They rely more on interpersonal factors
like face-to-face communication (Lengel & Daft, 1988), discussion and elaboration (Courtright, Fairhurst, & Rogers, 1989), informal control systems (Ouchi, 1980), and interpersonal interactions (Nadler & Tushman, 1997). The significance of these
interpersonal influences in organic organizations should increase
the relevance of interpersonal aspects of justice and, thus, the
relative importance of interactional justice. As a result, we suggest
that individuals will focus more on interactional justice concerns in
organic organizations than in mechanistic organizations.

Organizational Structure, Organizational Justice,

Perceived Organizational Support, and Supervisory Trust
Our discussion to this point suggests that different types of
justice will be more important under different structural conditions. However, recent research on organizational justice has also
demonstrated that different types of justice may have different
effects on different outcome variables. In particular, this research
has demonstrated that procedural justice is most strongly related to
organization-referenced outcomes, and interactional justice is most
strongly related to supervisor-referenced outcomes. Most recently,
researchers have begun to examine the source of these differences.
This research suggests that social exchange processes mediate the
relationship between justice and outcomes.
Recent research has suggested that procedural and interactional
justice enhance the development of social exchange relationships
(Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001; Konovsky &
Pugh, 1994; Pillai, Schriescheim, & Williams, 1999; Masterson,
Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff,
1998). In the most comprehensive examination of these relationships, Masterson et al. (2000) provided a clear description and test
of the mediating effect of social exchange in the justice outcome

297

relationship. In particular, they found that procedural justice affected organization-referenced outcomes (e.g., organizational
commitment, turnover intentions), whereas interactional justice
affected supervisor-referenced outcomes (e.g., supervisory organizational citizenship behaviors [OCBs]). More importantly, they
demonstrated that the procedural justice outcome relationship was
mediated by the quality of individuals social exchange relationship with the organization (operationalized by individuals perceptions of organizational support). The interactional justice outcome
relationship was mediated by the quality of individuals social
exchange relationship with their supervisor (operationalized by the
quality of leadermember exchange). Other researchers have
found similar effects for the mediating effect of social exchange
(e.g., Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002; Konovsky & Pugh,
1994; Moorman et al., 1998).
Next, we considered the role of structure in these relationships.
Masterson et al. (2000) stated, justice perceptions are important
inputs into employees judgments of the quality of their exchange
relationships with their supervisors and organizations (p. 740).
We suggested previously that procedural justice will be more
salient in mechanistic organizations and that interactional justice
will be more salient in organic organizations. The increased attention to one type of justice or the other should affect the social
exchange relationship that develops. When procedural justice is
most salient, individuals are most likely to develop organizational
exchange relationships because they will have more information
that is relevant for this level of social exchange. Similarly, when
interactional justice is most relevant, individuals will be most
likely to form supervisory exchange relationships because they
have more information relevant to that level of exchange. Therefore, we suggest that in mechanistic organizations, a stronger
relationship will exist between procedural justice and the quality of
organizational social exchange relationships. Likewise, in organic
organizations, a stronger relationship will exist between interactional justice and quality of supervisory social exchange
relationships.
Cropanzano et al. (2001) suggested that researchers have several
choices of operationalizations for social exchange. In this study,
we used two constructs identified by Cropanzano et al. that have
also been used in previous research (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994;
Masterson et al., 2000; Moorman et al., 1998). We operationalized
organizational social exchange via perceived organizational support (POS) and supervisor social exchange with supervisory trust.
Figure 1 illustrates our two hypotheses based on these operationalizations. First, we predicted that the relationship between procedural justice and POS would be stronger in mechanistic than in
organic organizations. That is, we expected an interaction effect,
with structure moderating the relationship between procedural
justice and POS.
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between procedural justice
and POS will be stronger in mechanistic than in organic
organizational structures.
Second, we expected that the increased relevance of interactional
justice in organic organizations to be reflected in the influence of
interactional justice on the quality of supervisory social exchange.
Therefore, we expected that the relationship between interactional
justice and supervisory trust would be stronger in organic than in
mechanistic organizations. Again, this constitutes an interaction

AMBROSE AND SCHMINKE

298

department. Each survey packet contained a postage-paid envelope so that

the respondent could mail the survey directly back to the researchers,
thereby preserving anonymity. A total of 510 responses out of 540 surveys
(94.4%) were received and tabulated. Seventy-eight departments yielded
five or more surveys, 11 returned four, and 9 returned three (a sufficient
number to allow us to aggregate our measure of organizational structure;
see below). Four departments from four separate organizations yielded
only one or two responses and were eliminated from the sample. Thus, our
final sample consisted of 506 individuals from 98 departments of 64
organizations. Fifty-nine percent of participants were male, 41% were
female. Respondents averaged 33.6 years of age with 5.4 years of experience in their current organization.

Procedure
Figure 1. Organizational structure as a moderator of the relationship
between procedural and interactional justice and perceived organizational
support and supervisory trust.

effect, with structure moderating the relationship between interactional justice and supervisory trust.
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between interactional justice
and supervisory trust will be stronger in organic than in
mechanistic organizational structures.

Distributive Justice and Organization Structure

Our discussion thus far has focused on the effect of organizational structure on the relationship between procedural and interactional justice and outcomes. However, we must also consider
how organizational structure might influence the relationship between distributive justice judgments and outcomes. In the main,
the theoretical work on structure and justice discussed above is
silent with respect to distributive justice. Moreover, distributive
justice is not an essential part of research examining the differential relationships between procedural justice and interactional justice, social exchange, and outcome variables. Distributive justice is
generally considered to be more closely related to economic exchange than social exchange and is, therefore, not relevant to these
relationships (Cropanzano et al., 2001; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994;
Masterson, 2001). For example, Masterson et al. (2000) did not
include distributive justice in their study. Cropanzano et al. (2002)
controlled for distributive justice, but made no explicit predictions
for it in their analyses.
Similarly, we do not expect organizational structure to moderate
the relationship between distributive justice and the social exchange variables. However, in keeping with previous research
(e.g., Cropanzano et al., 2002), we included distributive justice and
its interaction with structure in our analyses as controls.

Method
Participants
Participants were from 102 departments of 68 organizations in the
southeast United States, including financial, food service, retail, manufacturing, education, medical, entertainment, insurance, technology, and governmental organizations. Each organization was contacted through current
students and alumni of a large southeastern university. Five to seven survey
packets (described below) were hand delivered to employees in each

Each survey packet began with instructions and demographic questions

(tenure, sex, age) followed by several instruments to assess characteristics
of the subjects organization, his or her perceptions organizational fairness,
POS, and supervisory trust. These instruments, which were presented in
random order across subjects, included measures of (a) organizational
structure, (b) procedural justice, interactional justice, and distributive justice, (c) POS, and (d) supervisory trust.

Measures
Organizational structure. Following Covin and Slevin (1989) and
Slevin and Covin (1997), we used Khandwallas (1976/1977) seven-item
scale, which measures the degree to which departments reflected mechanistic or organic characteristics. Participants indicated along a 7-point scale
the degree to which paired statements described the structure of their work
unit. (e.g., A strong insistence on a uniform managerial style throughout
the business unit vs. Managers operating styles allowed to range freely
from the very formal to the very informal and Tight formal control of
most operations by means of sophisticated control and information systems vs. Loose, informal control; heavy dependence on informal relationships and the norm of cooperation for getting things done.) Items were
scored such that higher values represented a more mechanistic structure
(Cronbachs coefficient .83).
Organizational structure is a shared phenomenon. Thus, aggregation of
individual-level perceptions to a group level is desirable (Rousseau, 1985).
We aggregated individual-level perceptions of structure to group-level
measures of shared perceptions of structure (Covin & Slevin, 1989;
Schminke et al., 2000). To ensure that aggregation was appropriate, we
first assessed the degree of agreement for the structure measure by calculating both the within-group interrater reliability statistic (rwg) statistic
(James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984, 1993; George & James, 1993; Kozlowski
& Hattrup, 1992) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each
department (Bartko, 1976; James, 1982). The rwg statistic reflects the
degree of interrater agreement between members of a group, with 1.00
reflecting perfect agreement across all members. Across the 98 departments in our sample, rwg ranged from .59 to .99, with a mean and median
rwg of .82, suggesting that aggregation was appropriate (George, 1990).1
The ICC(2) for these ratings was .76, indicating that the departments can
be reliably differentiated on individual perceptions of structure (James,
1982). (ICC[1] for these ratings, typically considerably lower than ICC[2],
was .38, which is considered high [Bliese, 2000]. However, James [1982]

1
Nine departments had rwg values that fell below .70, which is often
considered a standard guideline for an acceptable level of agreement for
aggregation. We conducted two sets of analyses. One included all of the
respondents, and the other included only those from companies with rwg
values greater than or equal to .70. The pattern and significance of the
results is the same for both sets of analyses. In the article, we report results
on the basis of the full sample.

STRUCTURE AND JUSTICE

299

Table 1
Summary Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Perceived procedural justice

Perceived interactional justice
Perceived distributive justice
Organizational structure
Perceived organizational support
Supervisory trust

** p .05.

SD

3.12
3.95
3.23
3.91
3.13
3.05

0.94
0.99
1.18
0.84
1.23
1.16

.40***
.55***
.08
.52***
.35***

.40***
.08
.41***
.66***

.03
.53***
.31***

.14**
.01

.47***

*** p .01.

argued that for organizational characteristics [like structure], reliability at

the aggregate level, ICC[2], is the appropriate measure.)
Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. We used Colquitts
(2001) measures for distributive, procedural, and interactional justice.
These scales assess the extent to which the respondents experience reflects
attributes of fair outcomes, procedures, and interactions along a 5-point
Likert-type scale (1 to a small extent, 5 to a great extent). Four items
(e.g., outcomes are justified given performance, outcomes are appropriate
for work completed) assessed perceptions of distributive justice (Cronbachs .96). Seven items (e.g., procedures have been applied consistently, procedures have been free of bias) assessed perceptions of procedural justice (Cronbachs .83). Nine items assessed perceptions of
interactional justice. Four measured perceptions of interpersonal sensitivity
(e.g., treated in a polite manner, treated with respect) and five measured
perceptions of explanations (e.g., candid communication, explanations
used to make job decisions reasonable; Cronbachs .86).
Supervisory trust. We used McAllisters (1995) measure of supervisory trust. Individuals indicated their agreement on a 7-point Likert-type
scale with 11 items that assessed their relationship with their immediate
supervisor (Cronbachs .92). Sample items included I can talk freely
to my supervisor about difficulties I am having at work and know that (s)he
will want to listen and Most people, even those who arent close friends
of my supervisor, trust and respect him/her as a coworker.
POS. POS was assessed by using the eight-item short version of the
Eisenberger POS scale (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997).
Individuals indicated their agreement with the eight items (e.g., help is
available from my organization when I have a problem, my organization
really cares about my well-being) by using a 7-point Likert-type scale
(Cronbachs .90).

Results
We conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs)
to verify the factor structure for our measures. For each analysis,
we examined several commonly used indicators of fit: root-meansquare error of approximation (RMSEA), incremental fit index
(IFI), and comparative fit index (CFI). In general, RMSEA scores
below .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) and IFI and CFI scores above
.90 (Bentler & Bonnett, 1990) indicate a good model fit. First, we
assessed the fit of a five-factor model for the distributive justice,
procedural justice, interactional justice, POS, and supervisory trust
items. Chi-square for the five-factor model was 2(692, N
479) 2617.02, p .001, and the fit indices were RMSEA .08,
IFI .87, and CFI .87. Although two of the indices are slightly
below conventional levels, one indicates acceptable fit. We also
compared the fit of the five-factor model with a single factor
model, 2(702, N 479) 8210.57, p .001; RMSEA .20,
IFI .50, and CFI .50. The five-factor produced a significant
improvement in 2 over the one-factor model, 2(3, N 479)

difference 5593.55, p .001, suggesting a better fit than the

alternative model (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996).
For the organizational structure measure, the indices border the
acceptable range, 2(14, N 479) 159.58, p .001; RMSEA
.14, IFI .89, and CFI .89. Given the strong theoretical basis
for this measure, its previous use, and lack of a theoretically strong
alternative model, this fit was deemed adequate. Table 1 shows the
means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables.
To test our hypotheses, we used hierarchical linear modeling
(HLM) procedures, with POS and supervisory trust as the dependent variables (see Tables 2 and 3). HLM is a more appropriate
linear modeling tool than OLS because our variables represent
different levels of analysisindividuals and departments (Bryk &
Raudenbush, 1992; Hoffman, 1997). Because individuals from a
particular department share the same (aggregated) organizational
structure value, treating these as independent observations violates
OLS assumptions of independence. HLM allows for the investigation of nested models such as this, in which sample size (and
thus appropriate degrees of freedom) varies across variables. (In
this case, departmental n 98 and individual n 506.)
To allow comparisons with previous research, we first tested a
main-effects-only model (Model 1), followed by the fully specified
model including both main and interaction effects (Model 2). In
another effort to allow more direct comparisons with previous
research, the models reported here do not include control variables.2 In addition, following the recommendations of Aiken and
West (1991), we mean centered the interactions to reduce multicollinearity. An examination of the resulting variance inflation
factor indices indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern.
All values were below 2.0; values over 10.0 indicated that multicollinearity may be a problem (Ryan, 1997).
Hypothesis 1 predicted that organizational structure would moderate the relationship between procedural justice and POS. Thus,
we expected to find an interaction effect between procedural
justice and structure. The results of our HLM analysis, presented in
Table 2, support this hypothesis, revealing a significant interaction

2
In separate analyses not reported here, we examined the correlations
between our four predictor variables, our outcome variables, and three
potential controls: age, sex, and tenure. Of these 18 correlations, only 1
(age and distributive justice) was significant (r .10, p .05). Including
these three controls in the HLM models revealed no effects for any of the
three and no changes in significance level or direction for any of the main
or interaction effects in the models.

AMBROSE AND SCHMINKE

300

Table 2
Results of Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analysis for Interaction Effects Between Procedural
Fairness and Mechanistic Structure
Dependent variable: POS

Model 1

Model 2

Independent variable

Parameter estimate

Parameter estimate

Perceived procedural justice

Perceived interactional justice
Perceived distributive justice
Organizational structure (mechanistic)
Procedural Justice Structure
Interactional Justice Structure
Distributive Justice Structure
Constant

0.33 (0.06)***
0.25 (0.05)***
0.32 (0.05)***
0.21 (0.06)***

0.37 (0.06)***
0.24 (0.05)***
0.31 (0.05)***
0.20 (0.06)***
0.20 (0.08)**
0.04 (0.06)
0.09 (0.06)
2.37 (0.25)***

2.31 (0.25)***

Note. Values in parentheses indicate standard error. POS perceived organizational support.
** p .05. *** p .01.

between procedural justice and structure ( p .05).3 Following

Cohen and Cohen (1983), we plotted this interaction by using
justice perceptions one standard deviation above and below the
mean for high and low values, respectively. This interaction is
illustrated in Figure 2 and demonstrates the stronger relationship
between procedural justice and POS judgments in mechanistic
organizations.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that organizational structure would moderate the relationship between interactional justice and supervisory
trust, also suggesting an interaction effect between interactional
justice and structure. Results presented in Table 3 support this
hypothesis, revealing a significant interaction between interactional justice and structuretwo ( p .05). This relationship is
illustrated in Figure 3 and demonstrates the stronger relationship
between interactional justice and supervisory judgments in organic
organizations.
Table 3 also reveals a significant interaction effect between
procedural justice and structure. This relationship, which mirrors
that of the Procedural Justice Structure Interaction for POS, is
shown in Figure 4. Procedural justice is more strongly related to
supervisory trust in mechanistic organizations than in organic
organizations.
These results support our hypotheses. Procedural justice was
more strongly related to POS in mechanistic organizations, and
interactional justice was more strongly related to supervisory trust
in organic organizations. The results also revealed significant
positive main effects for all three types of justice on POS and
negative main effects of organizational structure on POS (mechanistic structures were negatively associated with POS). For supervisory trust, only procedural and interactional justice had significant positive main effects. However, all of these main effects
must be interpreted in the context of the interactions.

Discussion
In this study we predicted that organizational structure would
moderate the relationship between procedural and interactional
justice and social exchange relationships. Specifically, we examined the relationship between organizational structure, organizational justice, POS, and supervisory trust. Our results support these
predictions. The most obvious implication of this research is that
context matters in organizational justice and more specifically that

organizational structure matters. Structure influences the relationship between procedural justice and POS and between interactional justice and supervisory trust. We consider each of these
findings below.
First, structure moderates the relationship between procedural
justice and POS. Our results indicate that the relationship between
procedural justice and POS is stronger (i.e., the slope of the
regression line is steeper) in mechanistic organizations than in
organic organizations. The crossover point of the regression lines
indicates that this interaction is ordinal (Aiken & West, 1991;
Lubin, 1961). That is, the crossover point occurs within a relevant
range of the x variable (in this case 1 SD above and below the
mean). Thus, Figure 2 illustrates several interesting contrasts.
First, it suggests that at high levels of procedural justice (e.g.,
when individuals report that the formal procedures are especially
fair), individuals in mechanistic organizations report higher levels
of POS than do individuals in organic organizations. However,
when the level of procedural justice is low (e.g., when formal
procedures are unfair), individuals respond more negatively in
mechanistic organizations than in organic organizations.
These results are consistent with our extension of Leventhal et
al. (1980). The type of justice that is consistent with the goals of
the system is the most influential in individuals assessment of
their relationship. Individuals appear to be more sensitive to procedural justice in an organization that is characterized by a highly
formal, rigid, and bureaucratic system and in which formal procedures are part of the daily landscape. Although procedural justice
plays a role in organic organizations, its presence or absence has a
less pronounced effect where such formality is not expected.
3

OLS analyses of the HLM models reflected in Tables 2 and 3 resulted

in nearly identical results. All significant and nonsignificant effects were
replicated in OLS. HLM does not produce an R2 statistic, but modeling the
relationships reflected in Table 2 in an OLS framework resulted in an R2
of .41 for the fully specified model. The change in R2 (.01) from Model 1
to Model 2 was significant, F(2,477) 44.79, p .001. OLS analysis
replicating the models reflected in Table 3 resulted in an R2 of .46 for the
fully specified model. The change in R2 (.03) from Model 1 to Model 2 was
also significant, F(2,477) 54.83, p .001. These small, albeit significant, changes in variance accounted for by the interactions are common in
field research. Evans (1985) argued that interactions explaining as little as
1% additional variance should be considered as important.

STRUCTURE AND JUSTICE

301

Table 3
Results of Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analysis for Interaction Effects Between Interactional
Fairness and Organic Structure
Dependent variable: Supervisory trust

Model 1

Model 2

Independent variable

Parameter estimate

Parameter estimate

Perceived procedural justice

Perceived interactional justice
Perceived distributive justice
Organizational structure (mechanistic)
Procedural Justice Structure
Interactional Justice Structure
Distributive Justice Structure
Constant

0.09 (0.05)*
0.70 (0.04)***
0.02 (0.04)
0.06 (0.06)

0.13 (0.05)**
0.71 (0.05)***
0.02 (0.04)
0.27 (0.58)
0.18 (0.07)**
0.11 (0.05)**
0.04 (0.06)
2.96 (0.22)***

2.84 (0.25)***

Note. Values in parentheses indicate standard error.

* p .10. ** p .05. *** p .01.

Second, structure moderates the relationship between interactional justice and supervisory trust (Figure 3). In organic organizations, interactional justice is a more influential determinant of
trust. Organic organizations, with their flexibility and reliance on
informal networks and face-to-face communication, make interpersonal interactions more relevant or available or both, thus
increasing the importance of the fairness of these interactions.
When interactional justice is high, individuals in organic organizations report higher levels of supervisory trust than do individuals
in mechanistic organizations. However, when interactional justice
is low, individuals in organic organizations report lower levels of
trust than do their mechanistic counterparts. The effect of interactional justice on supervisory trust is more pronounced in organic
organizations.
The interaction between structure and procedural justice was
also significantly related to supervisory trust. The form of this
interaction is similar to that between procedural justice and POS.
The relationship between procedural justice and supervisory trust
was stronger in mechanistic organizations than in organic organizations. In mechanistic organizations, the supervisors behavior is
more likely to be constrained by rigid rules and regulations. In
such settings, it may be that the supervisor is perceived as an
extension of the organization, and thus, the fairness of organizational procedures generalizes to affect reactions to the supervisor
as well as the organization.

Figure 2. Moderating effect of organization structure on the relationship

between procedural justice and perceived organizational support. A solid
line indicates mechanistic structural form; a dotted line indicates organic
structural form.

Although we did not predict that procedural justice would be

related to trust, some previous research has shown that trust
mediates the relationship between procedural justice and outcomes
(Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Pillai et al., 1999). Unfortunately,
inconsistencies in the measures and constructs examined make it
difficult to draw strong conclusions about the procedural justice
trust relationship from this research. For example, Konovsky and
Pugh did not measure interactional justice and Pillai et al.s measure of procedural justice combines both procedural justice and
interactional justice items. The Masterson et al. (2000) study,
which distinguished between procedural justice and interactional
justice, did not find an effect of procedural justice on supervisory
social exchange. However, Colquitt et al. (2001) found metaanalytic correlations of .47 to .65 (depending on the operationalization of procedural justice) between perceptions of procedural
justice and trust. Our results suggest that procedural justice may
affect the quality of supervisory social exchange, albeit more
strongly in mechanistic organizations. It is clear that the relationship between procedural justice and trust warrants further investigation. Indeed, this relationship is particularly intriguing in light of
Rupp and Cropanzanos (2002) finding that supervisory social
exchange may affect organization-referenced outcomes.
Our results also revealed main effects of all three types of justice
and organizational structure on POS. Although these main effects
are qualified by the higher order interactions, an examination of
the figures and beta weights indicates that regardless of organiza-

Figure 3. Moderating effect of organization structure on the relationship

between interactional justice and supervisory trust. A solid line indicates
mechanistic structural form; a dotted line indicates organic structural form.

302

AMBROSE AND SCHMINKE

Figure 4. Moderating effect of organization structure on the relationship

between procedural justice and supervisory trust. A solid line indicates
mechanistic structural form; a dotted line indicates organic structural form

tional structure, all three types of justice are important for POS;
only the relative impact of each varies across organization type.
The main effect for structure is also interesting. This effect
suggests that mechanistic organizations are generally perceived as
less supportive than organic organizations, a finding that is consistent with previous research on organizational structure. For
example, Courtright et al. (1989) found mechanistic structures to
be associated with increasingly dysfunctional interaction patterns
between employees and managers, including higher overall levels
of disagreement, conflict, and managerial attempts to dominate
interactions. In addition, researchers suggest that rigid, mechanistic structures, such as those found in formal bureaucracies, are
likely to alienate employees (Blauner, 1964). These are attributes
that are likely to be associated with low levels of POS.
The effect of structure on POS may provide some additional
insight for existing research on organizational structure. Research
indicates that larger organizations (also characteristic of mechanistic organizations) are associated with higher absenteeism rates
and lower overall satisfaction (Indik, 1963; Rousseau, 1978;
Stevens, Philipsen, & Diederiks, 1992). It may be that POS mediates the relationship between structure and these outcomes.
It is also useful to consider our findings in the context of
previous research on organizational structure and justice, which
has suggested that structure exerts a direct effect on justice. In
particular, Schminke et al. (2000) found that two measures of
centralization were related to procedural justice and that organizational size was related to interactional justice. Although our
study does not directly address the influence of structure on justice,
the correlations in Table 1 reveal no direct relationship between
structure and any of the three forms of justice.
We cannot say with certainty why our correlational results do
not mirror those of Schminke et al. (2000), but several possibilities
exist. First, the two studies employed different measures of justice.
Schminke et al.s measures of procedural and interactional fairness
were adapted from Tyler and Schuller (1990), whereas those in the
present study were based on Colquitts (2001) more recent work.
What is possibly more important, however, are differences in
operationalization of the structure construct. Schminke at al. considered four distinct aspects of structure (two measures of centralization, formalization, and size) and hypothesized about each
aspects influence on procedural and interactional fairness. Our
measure of structure reflects a single, holistic measure of structure.
Finally, participants in the two studies differed somewhat. In the
Schminke et al. (2000) study, participants were midwestern, were

slightly older (mean age 38.6 years), had greater experience with
their organizations (mean tenure 9.1 years), and were more heavily
female (65%) than our participants. Our participants were southeastern, with an average age of 33.6 years, average tenure of 5.4
years, and were 59% male. Recent meta-analysis results (CohenCharash & Spector, 2001) have suggested that age, gender, race,
education, and tenure are not strongly related to justice perceptions. (The organizational justice literature does not speak to issues
of geographical differences.) Nevertheless, demographic factors
may interact in some way with organizational type and structure to
influence fairness perceptions.
The results have both theoretical and practical implications.
First, this research provides one of the few empirical tests of
contextual variables on justice perceptions, an area identified as
important to our understanding of organizational justice (see Lind
& Tyler, 1988, pp. 136 141). Second, the results provide support
for Leventhals (1980) and Tylers (1996) assertion that justice
criteria receive different weights in different settings. Although our
study did not assess the influence of specific justice criteria, the
differential effect of procedural justice and interactional justice on
outcomes is consistent with these assertions. Third, there has been
debate in the justice literature regarding the independence of
procedural justice and interactional justice (e.g., Bobocel & Holmvall, 2001). The differential effect of structure on procedural and
interactional justice provides additional evidence for the independence of these two constructs.
The results have practical importance as well. They suggest that
organizational interventions aimed at improving perceptions of
fairness should explicitly consider the role of organizational structure in the development of those perceptions. For example, justice
researchers have suggested organizations improve perceptions of
fairness by drafting formal polices that will be seen as fair (Folger
& Lewis, 1993; Gilliland, 1993; Grandey, 2001; Konovsky &
Brockner, 1993). Our findings suggest that this approach may be
most fruitful in mechanistic organizations. Similarly, Skarlicki and
Latham (1996, 1997) suggested that organizations should invest in
supervisor training to increase the sensitivity of interpersonal
interaction. Although our results demonstrate the importance of
interactional justice for both mechanistic and organic organizations, they also demonstrate that such training may have a more
pronounced effect in organic organizations where the organizational structure may facilitate its positive effect.
Like all studies, this one has some limitations. One potential
concern is that our results could be explained by common
method variance. Because many of the variables were taken
from a single respondent, some association might be expected
due to response style. However, our use of an aggregated
structure measure decreased our dependency on singlerespondent impressions. Further, our interaction effects were
significant, but as predicted, occurred in opposite directions for
procedural and interactional justice. Common method variance
would contribute to conformity in resulting relationships rather
than contrasting results like these.
In addition, although previous justice research has suggested our
causal ordering, it is also possible that organizational structure
affects the type of social exchange relationship that is important to
individuals and that the social exchange relationship affects the
importance of the different types of justice. In addition, the relationship between the quality of social exchange and perceptions of
fairness is most likely reciprocal. As Cropanzano et al. (2001)

STRUCTURE AND JUSTICE

noted, the closeness of the relationship is apt to bias perceptions

of fairness. In particular, the trust between the two parties could
lead each to be more forgiving when making fairness judgments
(p. 61). However, Cropanzano et al. also noted that it may also be
true that the mutual obligations of a close relationship create a
more taxing standard for justice . . . a violation of justice standards
should have more serious ramifications . . . . (p. 62). Clearly, the
relationship between justice and social exchange is complex.
Finally, we recognize that the results provide only a first step in
understanding the relationship between structure and justice perceptions. Clearly, we need to know more about the mechanism by
which this moderating effect occurs. On the basis of previous
research, we suggest that organizational structure affects the relative importance of procedural and interactional justice. However,
we do not know if it is the availability of information, the relevance of the information, or both that drives this importance. That
is, we do not know if individuals in organic organizations are less
affected by procedural justice because they do not have reliable
procedural information or if they perceive the procedural information as less relevant. Leventhal et al. (1980) suggested the latter,
but this assertion has not been examined empirically. We also do
not know if some procedural or interactional attributes are more
important than others in their contribution to these differences. A
greater understanding of the processes that underlie these differences would be useful.
Both organizational justice and organizational structure are important aspects of organizational life. Both are influential in determining individuals attitudes and behaviors. In this study we
examined the relationship between these two constructs and the
implication of this interaction for individuals reactions to their
organizations and their supervisors. The results demonstrate the
importance of considering contextual variables, such as organizational structure, and the role context may play in the assessment of
justice and its effects in organizations.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2001). Are flexible organizations the
death knell for the future of procedural justice? In R. Cropanzano (Ed.),
Justice in the workplace II: From theory to practice (pp. 229 244).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various interclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 762765.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1990). Significance tests and goodness
of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88,
588 606.
Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral
outrage. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 289 319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bies, R., & Moag, J. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria
of fairness. In R. Lewicki, M. Bazerman, & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 4355). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and his
industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and
reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein
& S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in
organizations (pp. 349 381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bobocel, D. R., & Holmvall, C. (2001). Are interactional justice and

303

procedural justice different? Framing the debate. In S. Gilliland, D.

Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management:
Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp.
85110). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model
fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation
models (pp. 136 162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation.
London: Tavistock.
Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history
of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clegg, S. R., & Hardy, C. (1996). Organizations, organization, and organizing. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of
organization studies (pp. 128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, 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, 278 324.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A
construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
386 400.
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.
Courtright, J. A., Fairhurst, G. T., & Rogers, I. E. (1989). Interaction
patterns in organic and mechanistic systems. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, 773 802.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms
in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10,
75 87.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001).
Self-enhancement biases, laboratory experiments, George Wilhelm
Friendrich Hegel and the increasingly crowded world of organizational
justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 260 272.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice:
Tunneling through the maze. In L. T. Robertson & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.
317372). New York: Wiley.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange
theory to distinguish procedural and interactional justice. Group and
Organizational Management, 27, 324 351.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three
roads to organizational justice. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel
and human resources management (pp. 1113). Oxford, England:
Elsevier Science.
Donaldson, L. (1996). The normal science of structural contingency theory.
In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 5776). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived
organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812 820.
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated and
method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305323.
Folger, R., & Lewis, D. (1993). Self-appraisal and fairness in evaluations.
In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness
in human resource management (pp. 107131). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
George, J. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 107116.
George, J., & James, L. R. (1993). Personality, affect, and behavior in
groups revisited: Comment on aggregation, level of analysis, and a

304

AMBROSE AND SCHMINKE

recent application of within and between analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 798 804.
Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An
organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18,
694 734.
Grandey, A. A. (2001). Family-friendly policies: Organizational justice
perceptions of need-based allocations. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in
the workplace (Vol. 2): From theory to practice (pp.145173). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.),
Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource
management (pp. 79 103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hoffman, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723744.
Indik, B. P. (1963). Some effects of organization size on member attitudes
and behavior. Human Relations, 16, 369 384.
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, 8598.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of
within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
306 309.
Jennings, D. F., & Seaman, S. L. (1990). Aggressiveness of response to
new business opportunities following deregulation: An empirical study
of established financial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 177
189.
Keeley, M. (1988). A social contract theory of organizations. Notre Dame,
IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Khandwalla, P. N. (1976/1977). Some top management styles, their context
and performance. Organization and Administrative Sciences, 7, 2151.
Khandwalla, P. N. (1977). The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact
on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 489 511.
Konovsky, M. A., & Brockner, J. (1993). Managing victim and survivor
layoff reactions: A procedural justice perspective. In R. Cropanzano
(Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource
management (pp. 133153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social
exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656 669.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about withingroup agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 161167.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment.
Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1988). The selection of communication media
as an executive skill. Academy of Management Executive, 2, 225232.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J.
Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange:
Advances in theory and research (pp. 2755). New York: Plenum.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A
theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social
interaction (pp. 167213). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural
justice. New York: Plenum.
Lubin, A. (1961). The interpretation of significant interaction. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 21, 807 817.
Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-down model of organizational justice:
Relating employees and customers perceptions of and reactions to
fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 594 604.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000).
Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair

procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738 748.
McAllister, D. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for
interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 24 59.
Meadows, I. S. G. (1980a). Organic structure, satisfaction, and personality.
Human Relations, 33, 383392.
Meadows, I. S. G. (1980b). Organic structure and innovation in small work
groups. Human Relations, 33, 369 382.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived
organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management
Journal, 41, 351357.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1997). Competing by design. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 25, 129 141.
Parthasarthy, R., & Sethi, S. P. (1993). Relating strategy and structure to
flexible automation: A test of fit and performance implications. Strategic
Management Journal, 14, 529 549.
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194 208.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989).
Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition. measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622 648.
Pillai, R., Schriescheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25, 897933.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1969). The
context of organization structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14,
91114.
Rahman, M., & Zanzi, A. (1995). A comparison of organizational structure, job stress, and satisfaction in audit and management advisory
services (MAS) in CPA firms. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7, 290
305.
Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Characteristics of departments, positions, and
individuals: Contexts for attitudes and behavior. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 23, 521540.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 137). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). Integrating psychological contracts
and multifocused organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 89, 925946.
Ryan, T. P. (1997). Modern regression methods. New York: Wiley.
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). The effect of
organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 294 304.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginners guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1993). Organizational
justice: The search for fairness in the workplace. New York: Lexington
Books.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship within a
union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 161169.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training in organizational justice to increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A
replication. Personnel Psychology, 50, 617 633.
Slevin, D. P., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Strategy formation patterns, performance, and the significance of context. Journal of Management, 23,
189 209.
Stevens, F., Philipsen, H., & Diederiks, J. (1992). Organization and pro-

STRUCTURE AND JUSTICE

fessional predictors of physician satisfaction. Organization Studies, 13,
35 49.
Stopford, J. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. W. F. (1994). Creating corporate
entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 521536.
Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An
interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 184 193.
Tyler, T. R. (1996). The relationship of outcome and procedural fairness:
How does knowing the outcome influence judgments about the procedure? Social Justice Research, 9, 311325.
Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Community, family, and the social
good: The psychological dynamics of procedural justice and social
identification. In G. B. Melton (Ed.), The individual, the family, and
social good: Personal fulfillment in times of change. Nebraska Sympo-

305

sium on Motivation (Vol. 42, pp. 5391). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Schuller, R. (1990). A relational model of authority in work
organizations: The psychology of procedural justice. Unpublished
manuscript, American Bar Foundation.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New
York: Free Press.
Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London: Oxford University Press.

Received December 21, 2001

Revision received May 14, 2002
Accepted May 15, 2002