Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between congruence between employee and employer psychological contract fulfillment and commitment. The authors further studied how the relationship is moderated by distributive justice.

The authors conducted polynomial regression analyses with response surface methodology on two Korean samples.

Congruence between employee and employer psychological contract fulfillment was positively related to affective commitment and occupational commitment. Distributive justice moderated these relationships.

The main limitation was common method bias as a result of the cross-sectional nature of the study designs.

Employers must be vigilant not only with regard to fulfilling employees’ psychological contracts but also to doing this fairly.

The authors studied the interaction effect of distributive justice on the relationship between psychological contract congruence and commitment in Korea.

Drawing from social dominance theories and conceptualizations of paternalism, the purpose of this paper is to define and develop a measure of subordinates’ perceptions of supervisor paternalism (SPSP).

The authors assess the validity of the measure using Hinkin’s (1998) scale development steps.

The authors found evidence of the convergent and discriminant validity of the measure of subordinates’ perceptions of supervisor paternalism drawing from three different samples. Participants in the study were also able to differentiate a low from a high paternalism condition using the measure of paternalism. Finally, as expected, the interaction between a supervisor’s benevolence and control was significantly associated with subordinates’ perceptions of supervisor paternalism.

The authors provide evidence for the validity of a measure of subordinates’ perceptions of supervisor paternalism while controlling for various status signals represented by demographic variables. Results may have been influenced by common method variance. However, there is no theoretical reason to expect any such interactions. Additionally, as the authors limited the data collection to the USA, the authors caution against generalizing beyond that context.

The authors provide validity and reliability evidence for a unidimensional measure that is short and easy to administer in future research to further examine the consequences of perceptions of supervisor paternalism.

Defining and measuring subordinates’ perceptions of supervisor paternalism is important to society given the potential adverse consequences of these perceptions. Because paternalistic relationships pervade many supervisor-subordinate interactions, both subordinates and supervisors can become more sensitive to the consequences of such interactions by understanding the conditions under which supervisor paternalism manifests itself.

Conceptually, in this study, the authors build on prior research and define supervisor paternalism from a social dominance perspective. Empirically, the authors contribute a statistically valid and reliable unidimensional measure.

The purpose of this paper is to examine alleged perpetrators' reactions to being accused of discrimination.

The paper examines how the mode of confrontation as well as the perpetrator's status relate to the alleged perpetrator's state of anger and the likelihood of providing a justification to the victim. To test the hypotheses, the authors conducted an experimental design using an organizational scenario.

The mode of confrontation predicts the likelihood of providing a justification to the victim. The paper also found that both anger and the likelihood of providing a justification for a charge of discrimination are higher when the mode of confrontation is indirect and the alleged perpetrator is the supervisor.

An organizational scenario limits the realism of the study such that results may not generalize to actual organizational settings (Stone, Hosoda, Lukaszewski and Phillips). In addition, the response rate was low. Nevertheless, a full understanding of issues related to reactions to alleged discrimination will depend upon research conducted in a variety of settings under a variety of conditions.

It is unlikely that direct confrontations will be instrumental in correcting misperceptions of discriminatory behavior. Organizations need to provide training on how to manage confrontation episodes as an opportunity to mitigate perceived mistreatment.

Which mode of confrontation is best? Indirect confrontation is associated with a higher likelihood of the alleged perpetrator providing a justification for a charge of discrimination, particularly when the alleged perpetrator is the supervisor. However, anger is also higher when supervisors are confronted indirectly about allegations of discrimination.