Original Article My Share Is Fair, So I Don’t Care The Moderating Role of Distributive Justice in the Perception of Leaders’ Self-Serving Behavior Jeroen Camps, Stijn Decoster, and Jeroen Stouten Department of Psychology, University of Leuven, Belgium Abstract. In the present research we argue that despite leaders’ self-serving actions, followers can still perceive them as being fair and thus ethical. First, we developed a scale to capture followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ self-serving behavior. Second, in a field study we showed that even though leaders may act self-servingly, if employees perceive their own outcomes as fair (i.e., ethical), they will not see much harm in the leader’s behavior. Finally, in a third study (a scenario study) we replicated the findings of our second study and examined the process underlying the proposed relationships. More specifically, we revealed that people experience increased uncertainty in the face of a self-serving leader and that distributive justice helps them deal with the emotional consequences of these feelings of uncertainty. In sum, our findings indicate that people care less about a self-serving leader as long as their share is fair. Keywords: self-serving leadership, ethical behavior, feelings of harm, negative emotions, distributive justice, uncertainty Unlike the romantic view of leadership, examples of Egypt’s Mubarak or Tyco International’s Dennis Kozlowski show that leaders often do not act in an ethical but rather a self- serving way by using public funds for personal gain. Here, we will focus on these self-serving leaders, whom we cate- gorize as leaders who place their own well-being and inter- ests above both their followers’ needs and the goals of the organization. Such leaders have a severe impact on their organization and the people who work for them. Indeed, being the victim of another’s harmful actions at work is often associated with negative emotions, lower job satisfac- tion, and burnout (Aquino & Thau, 2009). But even though the consequences are severe, self-serv- ing leaders can also behave ethically and be perceived as fair. Consider, for example, the myriad of movies starring a chief inspector who only looks out for himself but who also can be considerate and respectful to his less experienced prote ´ge ´. Although some studies have explored how different aspects of leaders’ behavior affect each other with regard to the consequences for their employees (e.g., De Cremer, 2004, 2006), research has yet to address – at least to our knowledge – the interplay between leaders’ self-serving behavior and the fairness of employees’ obtained outcomes. This is surprising given the fact that the extent to which leaders engage in self-serving behavior is closely related to the bias-suppression rule, an aspect of procedural justice that is essential in judging whether a leader’s decision-mak- ing process can be trusted or not (Leventhal, 1980). Here, we focus on this lacuna in the literature and argue that these specific aspects of ethical and self-serving leadership may go hand in hand and affect followers’ feelings of harm and emotions. Drawing on social justice and social exchange theory, we will substantiate our rationale below. Theoretical Framework As argued above, even leaders who put their own well-being first might partially act in an ethical way. One element that is an integral part of ethical leadership and is essential for shap- ing how leaders are evaluated is whether they are perceived as fair (De Cremer & Tyler, 2010; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Per- ceptions of fairness (i.e., organizational justice; Colquitt, 2001) generally depend on the outcomes of the leader’s actions (i.e., distributive justice), how these outcomes are obtained (i.e., procedural justice), and whether one receives a respectful treatment (i.e., interpersonal justice). Previous research has held different opinions with regard to when employees value fairness the most. For example, De Cremer and Tyler (2007) showed that procedural justice is especially beneficial for employees’ cooperation when a leader is trust- worthy rather than untrustworthy. Others, however, argued that fairness judgments are especially relevant when employ- ees are confronted with uncertainty about an authority’s trust- worthiness rather than when employees have detailed information about their leader’s trustworthiness (Van den Bos, Wilke, & Lind, 1998). Moreover, Van Knippenberg, De Cremer, and Van Knippenberg (2007) suggested that per- ceptions of fairness might be especially important if other aspects are less able to support a leader’s trustworthiness. Hence, this will be specifically the case if the leader is self- serving, a situation in which the salience of fairness might be especially relevant and protective for employees. As a lea- der’s self-serving actions are not necessarily detrimental for employees, such actions will leave employees with addi- tional uncertainty, rather than provide them with specific information about the consequences of the leader’s course of actions. This might suggest that even though leaders Ó 2012 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2012; Vol. 11(1):49–59 DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000058
Transcript
Original Article
My Share Is Fair, So I Don’t CareThe Moderating Role of Distributive Justice
in the Perception of Leaders’ Self-Serving Behavior
Jeroen Camps, Stijn Decoster, and Jeroen Stouten
Department of Psychology, University of Leuven, Belgium
Abstract. In the present research we argue that despite leaders’ self-serving actions, followers can still perceive them as being fair and thusethical. First, we developed a scale to capture followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ self-serving behavior. Second, in a field study we showedthat even though leaders may act self-servingly, if employees perceive their own outcomes as fair (i.e., ethical), they will not see much harm in theleader’s behavior. Finally, in a third study (a scenario study) we replicated the findings of our second study and examined the process underlyingthe proposed relationships. More specifically, we revealed that people experience increased uncertainty in the face of a self-serving leader and thatdistributive justice helps them deal with the emotional consequences of these feelings of uncertainty. In sum, our findings indicate that people careless about a self-serving leader as long as their share is fair.
Unlike the romantic view of leadership, examples of Egypt’sMubarak or Tyco International’s Dennis Kozlowski showthat leaders often do not act in an ethical but rather a self-serving way by using public funds for personal gain. Here,we will focus on these self-serving leaders, whom we cate-gorize as leaders who place their own well-being and inter-ests above both their followers’ needs and the goals of theorganization. Such leaders have a severe impact on theirorganization and the people who work for them. Indeed,being the victim of another’s harmful actions at work isoften associated with negative emotions, lower job satisfac-tion, and burnout (Aquino & Thau, 2009).
But even though the consequences are severe, self-serv-ing leaders can also behave ethically and be perceived asfair. Consider, for example, the myriad of movies starringa chief inspector who only looks out for himself but whoalso can be considerate and respectful to his less experiencedprotege. Although some studies have explored how differentaspects of leaders’ behavior affect each other with regard tothe consequences for their employees (e.g., De Cremer,2004, 2006), research has yet to address – at least to ourknowledge – the interplay between leaders’ self-servingbehavior and the fairness of employees’ obtained outcomes.This is surprising given the fact that the extent to whichleaders engage in self-serving behavior is closely relatedto the bias-suppression rule, an aspect of procedural justicethat is essential in judging whether a leader’s decision-mak-ing process can be trusted or not (Leventhal, 1980). Here,we focus on this lacuna in the literature and argue that thesespecific aspects of ethical and self-serving leadership maygo hand in hand and affect followers’ feelings of harmand emotions. Drawing on social justice and socialexchange theory, we will substantiate our rationale below.
Theoretical Framework
As argued above, even leaders who put their own well-beingfirst might partially act in an ethical way. One element that isan integral part of ethical leadership and is essential for shap-ing how leaders are evaluated is whether they are perceivedas fair (De Cremer & Tyler, 2010; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Per-ceptions of fairness (i.e., organizational justice; Colquitt,2001) generally depend on the outcomes of the leader’sactions (i.e., distributive justice), how these outcomes areobtained (i.e., procedural justice), and whether one receivesa respectful treatment (i.e., interpersonal justice). Previousresearch has held different opinions with regard to whenemployees value fairness the most. For example, De Cremerand Tyler (2007) showed that procedural justice is especiallybeneficial for employees’ cooperation when a leader is trust-worthy rather than untrustworthy. Others, however, arguedthat fairness judgments are especially relevant when employ-ees are confronted with uncertainty about an authority’s trust-worthiness rather than when employees have detailedinformation about their leader’s trustworthiness (Van denBos, Wilke, & Lind, 1998). Moreover, Van Knippenberg,De Cremer, and Van Knippenberg (2007) suggested that per-ceptions of fairness might be especially important if otheraspects are less able to support a leader’s trustworthiness.Hence, this will be specifically the case if the leader is self-serving, a situation in which the salience of fairness mightbe especially relevant and protective for employees. As a lea-der’s self-serving actions are not necessarily detrimental foremployees, such actions will leave employees with addi-tional uncertainty, rather than provide them with specificinformation about the consequences of the leader’s courseof actions. This might suggest that even though leaders
may be acting self-servingly, if employees perceive them asfair, employees will be better equipped to deal with experi-enced uncertainty and consequently feel more psychologi-cally safe (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002). Therefore, weargue that if employees perceive self-serving leaders as fair,they will not see much harm in their leaders’ behavior. Morespecifically, as leaders’ self-serving actions have the potentialto be mainly harmful for employees’ outcomes, we argue thatthe fairness of the benefits employees receive (distributivefairness) is especially relevant in this regard. This can beexplained by social exchange processes as employees oftensee their relationship with their leader as a social exchangein which they aim to balance costs and benefits (Homans,1961). If there is an imbalance in the exchange, employeesfeel they have been harmed (Adams, 1965) and experiencenegative emotions as a result of the perceived imbalance(Stouten, De Cremer, & Van Dijk, 2006).
Taken together, our research aims to make several contri-butions to the literature. First, we examine how the interplayof good and bad leadership behavior affects followers’ atti-tudes and affective reactions. We reason that leaders’ self-serving behavior will result in increased uncertainty aboutpotential harm for oneself and consequently affect theiremotional reactions. Therefore, if employees perceive theexchange of their outcomes to be positive, the balanceremains whereas it will turn negative if outcomes fail tocompensate for the leader’s self-serving behavior. Second,even though we stipulate our rationale on distributive jus-tice, we specifically aim to examine the importance of dis-tributive fairness compared with other fairness principlesfor employees’ reactions toward self-serving leaders. Thatis, as equity theory states that people are often focused onthe outcomes they receive (Adams, 1965) and outcomeinformation plays an essential role in people’s judgmentof the ethicality of others’ behavior (Gino, Moore, &Bazerman, 2012), we argue that distributive justice mightprotect employees with regard to their feelings of harmand negative emotions in the presence of a self-serving lea-der. However, in order to properly examine the contributionof a specific fairness dimension to the prediction of out-comes, Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and Ng (2001)suggested that one should also take other aspects of fairness(and their interactions) into account. Hence, even though weargue that especially outcome fairness matters for the rela-tionship between leaders’ self-serving behavior and employ-ees’ feelings of harm, we also included procedural andinterpersonal justice to test for the unique contribution ofdistributive fairness with regard to employees’ feelings ofharm. In sum, we tested the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Self-serving leadership and distributivejustice interact so that the positive relationshipbetween self-serving leadership and employees’ feel-ings of harm will be weaker when distributive justiceis high rather than low (even after controlling for pro-cedural and interpersonal justice).
In the hypothesis listed above, we argued that whenemployees perceive their obtained outcomes as fair, they willfeel less harmed by their leader’s self-serving behavior. As
feelings of harm are a prime trigger of negative emotions,we aim to extend our findings by exploring the influence ofleaders’ self-serving behavior on people’s emotionalreactions. Examining such emotional reactions is especiallyrelevant as the way people feel plays an important role in pre-dicting several outcomes relevant for organizational life, suchas retaliation behavior (Stouten, De Cremer, & Van Dijk,2005) and performance (McColl-Kennedy & Anderson,2002).
Hypothesis 2: Distributive justice will moderate therelationship between self-serving leadership and peo-ple’s negative emotions. That is, when distributivejustice is high, the impact of self-serving leadershipon people’s negative emotions will be less strong thanwhen distributive justice is low.
Yet, even if distributive justice is crucial when it comes toemployees’ feelings of harm or negative emotions in the lightof a self-serving leader, the process underlying these relationsstill remains unclear. Such an insight is nevertheless essentialin order to determine exactly where in the process distribu-tive justice will provide employees with emotional comfort.As stated earlier, we argue that self-serving leaders willarouse employees’ uncertainty (with regard to their own out-comes) and because of this such leaders negatively affecttheir employees’ emotional state. However, uncertainty man-agement theory states that fairness provides people with away to cope with the uncertainties they encounter in theirdaily life (Van den Bos & Lind, 2002). Applying this lineof reasoning to the present research, it would be expected thateven though self-serving leadership leads to increased uncer-tainty for employees, outcome fairness will provide peoplewith a means to cope with the induced uncertainty in away that they will experience less negative emotions. Takentogether, we expected the following:
Hypothesis 3: Self-serving leadership leads toincreased negative emotions through its relationshipwith uncertainty, but not when distributive justice ishigh. More specifically, we expect that distributivejustice will moderate the path between people’s uncer-tainty and negative emotions (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Predicted effects of leadership, uncertainty, anddistributive justice on negative emotions.
50 J. Camps et al.: Distributive Justice and Leaders’ Self-Serving Behavior
Research has examined different conceptualizations of neg-ative leadership, each with distinctive characteristics, such asabusive supervision (Tepper, 2000) or toxic leadership(Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Yet, although several negativeleadership styles involve a self-serving component to a cer-tain extent (e.g., Lipman-Blumen, 2005), no leadership stylefocuses specifically on followers’ perceptions of leaders’self-serving actions. Therefore, we first developed a self-serving leadership scale (SSLS) by taking the followingsteps (Hinkin, 1998): in Study 1a we developed the scale;in Study 1b, we further validated the factor structure usingconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA); and in Study 1c, weexamined convergent and divergent validity.
In Study 2 we addressed the moderating role of distrib-utive justice in the relation between self-serving leadershipand feelings of harm (Hypothesis 1). In this study a cross-sectional field design is used. Given that Study 2 was ableto ensure generalizability and mundane realism but couldnot establish causality, we used an experimental design inStudy 3 in order to test the hypothesized causal pattern. Inaddition, Study 3 focused on testing Hypotheses 2 and 3by extending the dependent measures to negative affectand by examining the underlying process.
Study 1a
A four-item SSLS was constructed based on retaliationbehavior (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997) and unethical behavior(Kaptein, 2008). We adapted the items to assess leaders’self-interested behavior and included only four items inorder to both obtain internal consistency reliabilities andminimize response bias (Hinkin, 1998; see Table 1).
We administered the survey to 265 undergraduate stu-dents (52% females; Mage = 21.5 years, SD = 1.98). Partic-ipants’ average work experience was 15.9 months(SD = 23.2). Exploratory principal component analysisusing promax rotation revealed the predicted single factorsolution. This primary factor accounted for 69.2% of thetotal variance (eigenvalue = 2.77) and had a high reliability(a = .87). Since all items loaded strongly on this factor (seeTable 1), all items were retained (Hinkin, 1998). In short,this study provides evidence for the internal consistencyand the content validity of the SSLS.
Study 1b
In line with Hinkin’s (1998) guidelines, we conducted aCFA on an independent sample to further validate the factorstructure of the scale. We administered the survey to 190students (41 males; Mage = 21.4 years, SD = 6.93) to testthe single factor model. Participants’ average work experi-ence was 30.2 months (SD = 77.0).
The CFA was conducted on the asymptotic covariancematrix and the solution of the analysiswas generated by usingmaximum-likelihood estimation inLISREL8.50 (Joreskog&Sorbom, 2004). Both absolute (e.g., Standardized RootMeanSquare Residual, SRMR) and incremental (e.g., ComparativeFit Index, CFI) fit indices were used to evaluate the fit of themodel to the data (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988). Thesingle factormodel fit the datawell since all fit indices reachedthe recommended standards (e.g., Schreiber, Stage, King,Nora, & Barlow, 2006): Root Mean Square Error of Approx-imation (RMSEA) = .033; SRMR = .030; Tucker-LewisIndex (TLI) = .996; CFI = .999; Akaike information crite-rion (AIC) = 21.536. Standardized factor loadings arereported in Table 1. The internal consistency was satisfying(a = .76).
Study 1c
We examined the convergent and divergent validity of theSSLS by assessing it along with ethical leadership (Brown,Trevino, & Harrison, 2005) and abusive supervision(Tepper, 2000). Ethical leadership is defined as ‘‘the demon-stration of normatively appropriate conduct through per-sonal actions and interpersonal relationships, and thepromotion of such conduct to followers through two-waycommunication, reinforcement, and decision-making’’(Brown et al., 2005, p. 120) and contrasts sharply withself-serving leadership. Abusive supervision refers to ‘‘sub-ordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisorsengage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonver-bal behaviors, excluding physical contact’’ (Tepper, 2000,p. 178). Although we expect self-serving leadership andabusive supervision to be positively related, we argue thatboth concepts are distinct from one another. This becomesapparent when we evaluate both concepts along Tepper’s(2007) dimensions. First, abusive supervision is directeddownwards (i.e., supervisors’ hostile behavior toward fol-
Table 1. Items and item loadings from exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA)
Items Study 1a (EFA) Study 1b (CFA) Study 1c (CFA) Study 2 (CFA)
My supervisor would forge a document when this couldimprove his/her position.
.784 .601 .846 .746
My superior is selfish and thinks he/she is very important. .876 .781 .886 .917My superior does not show consideration for his/herfollowers, only for him/herself.
.845 .807 .880 .875
My superior uses resources of the company for him/herself. .821 .633 .659 .661
J. Camps et al.: Distributive Justice and Leaders’ Self-Serving Behavior 51
lowers) in contrast to self-serving leadership, which is aimedsolely at enhancing one’s own well-being and does not nec-essarily involve leader-follower interactions. Second, whileabusive supervision excludes other forms of hostility, suchas physical contact, we do not exclude such behavior as longas leaders display it in order to enhance their personal out-comes. Third, whereas abusive supervision focuses onlyon hostility, self-serving leadership captures behaviors thatmay not necessarily be viewed as hostile (e.g., a leaderwho uses resources of the company for his/her own well-being may not directly be hostile). Finally, whereas abusivesupervision does not imply a focus on one’s outcomes, self-serving leaders place their well-being and personal goalsfirst. To summarize, we expect both ethical leadership andabusive supervision to be distinct enough from self-servingleadership to warrant a representation as different constructs.
One hundred forty-eight employees (60 males;Mage = 38.11 years, SD = 10.24), with an average job tenureof 10.53 years (SD = 9.88), completed the survey. Means,standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations arereported in Table 2. In line with Study 1a and 1b, the internalconsistency of the SSLS was satisfying (a = .85). Consistentwith our predictions, the SSLS was positively correlated withabusive supervision (r = .81, p < .001) and negatively corre-lated with ethical leadership (r = �.66, p < .001).
Next, we conducted a CFA in which the items were onlyallowed to load on their appropriate factor (three-factormodel) versus a model where both self-serving leadershipand abusive supervision were forced to load on the samefactor, whereas ethical leadership was forced to load on asecond factor (two-factor model) and a model where allitems loaded on one factor. The three-factor model fit thedata well (RMSEA = .051; SRMR = .062; TLI = .991;CFI = .991; AIC = 1005.095). Results from the two-factor(RMSEA = .076; SRMR = .085; TLI = .980; CFI = .981;AIC = 1266.947; Dv2 = 265.85, Ddf = 2, p < .001) andthe single factor (RMSEA = .128; SRMR = .088;TLI = .942; CFI = .946; AIC = 2199.824; Dv2 = 1200.73,Ddf = 3, p < .001) models suggested that the three-factormodel had superior fit. Overall, results demonstrated ade-quate unidimensionality, construct validity as well as goodinternal consistency.
Study 2
Previous studies showed sufficient support for the SSLS.Here, we examined the relation between self-serving leader-
ship and employees’ feelings of harm as a function ofemployees’ perceptions of fairness.
Participants and Design
One hundred thirty-four employees (57 males;Mage = 40.03years, SD = 10.83), with an average tenure of 8.30 years(SD = 8.76), participated voluntarily. Questionnaires wereindividually returned in sealed envelopes to assureanonymity.
Measures
Items were scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (to asmall extent) to 5 (to a large extent).
Self-Serving Leadership
We assessed self-serving leadership with the SSLS(a = .86).
Distributive Justice
Distributive justice was assessed with Colquitt’s (2001)four-item measure (a = .97). A sample item is ‘‘Are youroutcomes justified, given your performance?’’
Procedural Justice
Procedural justice was assessed using Colquitt’s (2001)seven-item scale (a = .86). A sample item is ‘‘To whatextent are procedures applied consistently?’’
Interpersonal Justice
Interpersonal justice was measured with Colquitt’s (2001)four-item scale (a = .82). A sample item is ‘‘Has (s)he trea-ted you with respect?’’
Feelings of Harm
We measured to what extent employees felt harmed by theirleader with a seven-item scale (a = .78) based on a victim-ization measure of Aquino (2000). Sample items include‘‘My leader caused me harm’’ and ‘‘My leader has disadvan-taged me.’’
Results
Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercor-relations of the measures. We conducted a CFA to test forcommon-method variance since our measures were tested in
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelationsfor Study 1c
a cross-sectional design. If common-method variance is a sig-nificant concern, a single factor model should fit the data aswell as a more complex model (Korsgaard & Roberson,1995; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). CFAs revealed that thefive-factor model in which the items of self-serving leader-ship, distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal jus-tice, and feelings of harm, loaded on the five underlyingconstructs they were designed to assess (RMSEA = .000;SRMR = .060; TLI = 1.002; CFI = 1.000; AIC =205.418), fitted the data better than the one-factor model(RMSEA = .167; SRMR = .142; TLI = 0.897; CFI =0.914; AIC = 745.773; Dv2 = 560.36, Ddf = 10, p < .001).
To test our hypotheses, hierarchical regression analyseswere performed after controlling for employees’ gender,age, and tenure. Following Aiken and West (1991), all inde-pendent measures were centered (i.e., by subtracting themean from each score) in order to calculate the interactionterms. Regressing harm on distributive justice and self-serv-ing leadership revealed a main effect of self-serving leader-ship, b = .36, p < .001, and, more interestingly, a significantinteraction effect, b = �.13, p < .05. Simple slopes analy-ses revealed that when distributive justice was low, self-serv-ing leadership was stronger positively associated with harm(b = .48, p < .001) than when distributive justice was high(b = .22, p < .05). In order to examine the unique contribu-tion of a specific type of justice (i.e., distributive justice), ithas been recommended to control for other types (i.e., pro-
cedural justice and interpersonal justice; Colquitt, 2001).Regressing harm on all three justice dimensions (and all pos-sible interactions) revealed a main effect of interpersonaljustice, b = �.38, p < .001, and procedural justice,b = �.18, p < .05. More importantly, when looking at theinteraction terms, only the interaction between distributivejustice and self-serving leadership was shown to be signifi-cant, b = �.15, p < .05 (Figure 2). This suggests thatmainly outcome fairness affects the relation between self-serving leadership and personal harm. Taken together, thisconfirms Hypothesis 1.
Study 3
In Study 2 we showed that when employees perceive theirown outcomes as fair, they feel less harmed in the face ofa self-serving leader. Yet, although we revealed that distrib-utive justice protects employees against the harmful conse-quences of self-serving leadership, we did not explore theprocess underlying these findings. Here, we examinewhether distributive fairness will provide participants witha means to cope with, and thus protect them against, thenegative consequences of uncertainty (induced by self-serv-ing leadership). In this study we also extend our dependentmeasures to people’s negative emotions toward their self-serving leader. As we address these issues in a scenariostudy, we not only add to Study 2 by exploring the underly-ing process but also by confirming causality. Finally, self-serving leadership can be identified as an exemplar ofLeventhal’s (1980) bias-suppression rule, given that biassuppression is the leader being neutral, unbiased, and beingselfless in his or her judgments and decision making. Wespecifically aim to manipulate self-serving leadership as biassuppression in order to address a wider range of self-servingleadership and test for consistency of our findings.
Participants and Design
Eighty-seven participants (37 females; Mage = 20.06 years,SD = 2.17) participated voluntarily in this study. They wererandomly assigned to a 2 (leadership: unbiased vs.biased) · 2 (distributive justice: negative vs. positive out-come) between-subjects design.
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
Low
Self-Serving Leadership
Feel
ings
of H
arm
Distributive Justice Low Distributive Justice High
High
Figure 2. Feelings of harm as a function of self-servingleadership and distributive justice.
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for Study 2
Participants were asked whether they were willing to partic-ipate in a scenario study about a work-related situation.When they agreed, they were asked to imagine the followingsituation (see De Cremer, 2004):
For some time now, you have worked for a companycalled Pear Mac that specializes in buying and sellingcomputer equipment. After a while, you participate inan internal selection procedure to acquire a higherposition within this company. Therefore, you willhave to follow a specific procedure. More specifically,your supervisor will use a procedure consisting ofnine different parts: an intelligence test, a personalitytest, a mathematical test, a test measuring your techni-cal skills, a test assessing calculation skills, a lan-guage test, a test measuring your demographicalskills, a motivation test, and finally, an interview withyour supervisor. Due to your work specifics, you needto collaborate quite often with your supervisor. Afterthis selection procedure, your supervisor will decidewhether you will be promoted.
This story was followed by the manipulation of leader-ship, which closely resembled Leventhal’s (1980) bias sup-pression. In the unbiased condition, participants read thefollowing:
Following conversations with others and your owndaily observations, you know that your supervisor isan unbiased person. He will never take decisions thatare favoring solely his own interests, although notnecessarily favoring those of others. For example,you know that he will never refuse to promote some-one just because the company wishes to promotesomeone else.
In the biased condition, participants read the following:
Following conversations with others and your owndaily observations, you know that your supervisor isa biased person. He will often take decisions thatare solely in favor of his own interests and not infavor of the interest of others. For example, you knowthat he may promote someone just because the com-pany wishes to promote other people.
Thereafter, the manipulation of distributive justice wasintroduced. In the negative outcome condition, participantsread:
Aweek after the tests you hear that the supervisor haslooked over the tests and has selected another personfor the promotion. Hence, you will not receive thepromotion.
In the positive outcome condition, participants read:
Aweek after the tests you hear that the supervisor haslooked over the tests and selected you to be the personreceiving the promotion. You will start in your newposition next month.
After participants finished the story, the dependentmeasures were introduced. All questions were scored on a5-point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to5 (extremely).
Negative Emotions
Participants were asked to indicate to what extent theywould feel hostile, irritable, angry, and frustrated after thepresented situation. These items were combined in orderto form a negative emotion scale (a = .83; see Stoutenet al., 2005).
Uncertainty
The extent to which participants experienced uncertaintywas assessed with three questions (a = .74): ‘‘I would feeluncertain about this situation,’’ ‘‘I would feel unsure aboutmy current job,’’ and ‘‘I would feel uncertain about the rela-tion with my supervisor.’’
Manipulation Check for Leadership
To test whether the leadership manipulation was successful,we asked participants to what degree they believed that theirsupervisor used the selection procedure in a fair way.
Manipulation Check for Distributive Justice
To test whether the manipulation of distributive justice wassuccessful, participants were asked to what degree theyjudged their obtained outcome to be positive.
Results
Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations of the measures.
Manipulation Checks
A 2 (leadership) · 2 (distributive justice) ANOVA on theleadership manipulation check revealed the intended maineffect for leadership, F(1, 83) = 15.78, p < .001, g2 = .13.Participants in the biased condition judged the way the lea-der used the selection procedure as less fair (M = 2.40;
54 J. Camps et al.: Distributive Justice and Leaders’ Self-Serving Behavior
SD = 1.23) than participants in the unbiased condition(M = 3.64; SD = 1.15). Unexpectedly, distributive justicealso was significant, F(1, 83) = 11.23, p = .001, g2 = .09.Participants in the negative outcome condition also experi-enced the selection procedure as less fair (M = 2.54;SD = 1.32) than participants in the positive outcome condi-tion (M = 3.67; SD = 1.08). Apparently, people whoreceive a favorable outcome perceive their leader as actingin a more fair way, regardless of whether the leader is biasedor not. However, as a large number of studies revealed thatpeople who receive positive outcomes judge the proceduresused to obtain these outcomes to be more fair (e.g., Skitka,Winquist, & Hutchinson, 2003; Tyler, 1988), we do notjudge this to be problematic for testing the proposedhypotheses.
A 2 (leadership) · 2 (distributive justice) ANOVA onthe outcome manipulation check revealed only a main effectfor distributive justice, F(1, 83) = 63.03, p < .001,g2 = .41. Participants who received the promotion experi-enced their own outcome as more positive (M = 4.28;SD = 1.00) than participants who did not receive the promo-tion (M = 2.13; SD = 1.30).
Dependent Measures
First, a 2 (leadership) · 2 (distributive justice) ANOVA onparticipants’ negative emotions revealed no main effect ofleadership, F(1, 83) = 1.33, p = .25. However, there was amain effect of distributive justice, F(1, 83) = 80.32,p < .001, g2 = .44. Participants experienced less negativeemotions when they were promoted (M = 1.58; SD = 0.77)than when another person received the promotion(M = 3.26; SD = 0.89). More importantly, the ANOVArevealed the hypothesized interaction on negative emotions,F(1, 83) = 4.40, p < .05, g2 = .02. An ANOVA revealedthat when distributive justice was low, participants experi-enced more negative emotions if their leader was biased(M = 3.49; SD = 0.82) rather than unbiased (M = 2.89;SD = 0.89), F(1, 46) = 5.66, p < .05, g2 = .11. In contrast,when distributive justice was high, participants in the biasedleadership condition did not experience more negative emo-tions (M = 1.46; SD = 0.45) than those in the unbiasedleadership condition (M = 1.63; SD = 0.88), F < 1. Thesefindings confirm Hypothesis 2.
Finally, we tested the hypothesis that uncertainty medi-ated the relationship between leadership and negative emo-tions only when distributive justice is low (Hypothesis 3). In
order to address this moderated mediation hypothesis, wefirst examined whether distributive justice moderated therelationship between uncertainty and negative emotions (aswe expected), the relation between leadership and uncer-tainty, or both. Results showed that the cross-product termbetween distributive justice and uncertainty on negativeemotions was significant (b = �.46, p < .05), while thecross-product term between leadership and distributive jus-tice on uncertainty was not significant (F < 1). This pro-vides evidence that distributive justice only affected thepath between uncertainty and negative emotions. Next, wecalculated bootstrap intervals (5,000 replications) in orderto examine the indirect effect at the two levels of the mod-erator (i.e., distributive justice). Bootstrapping treats thesample as a population and then resamples with replacementa number of times and computes relevant statistics for eachreplacement sample (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). As this tech-nique does not require a normal distribution of the sample, aconfidence interval is computed. In line with our expecta-
Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for Study 3
Notes. N = 87. Reliabilities are presented on the diagonal. *p < .05, **p < . 01. aCoded 0 = male, 1 = female.
Figure 3. Role of uncertainty in mediating the impact ofleadership on negative emotions, as a function of lowdistributive justice (top panel) and high distributive justice(bottom panel). *p < .05. ***p < .001. Values in paren-theses represent the total effect of leadership on negativeemotions.
J. Camps et al.: Distributive Justice and Leaders’ Self-Serving Behavior 55
tions, results revealed an indirect effect when distributivejustice was low, but not when distributive justice was high(see Figure 3). More specifically, our findings reveal thateven though self-serving leadership increases people’suncertainty, this will only consequently affect their emo-tional reactions when distributive justice is low. Takentogether, our findings provide evidence for Hypothesis 3.1
In sum, our findings reveal that although people experi-ence increased uncertainty in the face of a self-serving leader,distributive justice helps them deal with the emotional conse-quences of their leader’s self-serving behavior. Indeed,although distributive justice did not affect the extent to whichpeople experienced uncertainty, it did provide them with ameans to cope with the experienced uncertainty and therebyprotected them against its emotional implications.
General Discussion
Although ethical leadership has received increasing atten-tion, leaders often act in an unethical and self-serving man-ner. Nevertheless, even these leaders can be perceived asethical and fair by their followers. Although some research-ers have examined how followers react to leaders who dis-play both good and bad behavior at the same time, to ourknowledge no research has examined the interplay betweenself-serving leadership (i.e., the extent to which leaders arebiased) and the extent to which they provide their employeeswith fair outcomes. Here, we showed that despite the inten-tions and the severity of a self-serving leader’s actions,employees who perceived their obtained outcomes as fairwere less inclined to feel harmed (Study 2) or to experiencenegative emotions (Study 3). Below we will discuss the the-oretical and practical implications of our findings.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
Generally, our results show that distributive justice is able toprotect followers against the harmful consequences associ-ated with self-serving leaders. Distributive fairness hasindeed been associated with several positive outcomes(Colquitt et al., 2001), and has even been argued to act asa coping mechanism for employees’ experienced uncertainty(Van den Bos & Lind, 2002). As self-serving leaders aremainly on the lookout for themselves and hardly considerthe consequences for others, employees experienceincreased uncertainty about possible consequences. Conse-quently, distributive fairness helps employees cope withthe uncertainty induced by the leader’s self-serving behaviorand provides them with comfort. The exchange of outcomesaffects how employees experience their leaders’ self-servingbehavior (and the uncertainty associated with it) and therebyenables them to cope with the potential costs of self-servingleadership. Our results indeed show that distributive fairness
will operate as a means to shield employees against thepotentially harmful consequences of self-serving leadership.Hence, fair and ethical conduct is able to draw away theattention from leaders’ self-serving actions.
The other side of the coin of our findings suggests, how-ever, that fairness also provides legitimacy for a leader’sactions (Tyler & Lind, 1992). In line with equity theory,employees who perceived their own outcomes as fair wereless inclined to feel discontent or harmed and also experi-enced less negative emotions (Adams, 1965). These findingscorrespond to Gino et al. (2012) who revealed that peopletend to take outcome information into account when theyevaluate the ethicality of others’ behavior. Hence, employeeswho are confronted with a self-serving leader who maintainsan image of fairness are better equipped against the personalimplications of his/her behavior.
However, this also implies that employees value theirown outcomes highly, and as long as they perceive their out-comes as fair, opposition to self-serving leaders will be lessstrong. It seems that employees focus on their own materialvalue and if the balance is positive, there is little reason tofeel bad. Therefore, leaders may use fairness not necessarilyto enhance beneficial outcomes for the entire company in thelong run but rather as an instrumental means to enable themto get away with self-serving behavior. Hence, it seems thatleaders may even benefit from the instrumental use of ethicsand fairness rather than being intrinsically ethical (Tyler,2001). Recently, social justice research has started payingmore attention to the intentions behind (un)ethical conduct.Umphress, Bingham, and Mitchell (2010), for example,showed that under certain conditions employees’ organiza-tional identity is positively related to their unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Here, we confirm and add to thisline of research by focusing on the instrumental way distrib-utive fairness can be used. Although the immediate out-comes (e.g., decreased harm and negative emotions) maybe identical, the reasons why leaders turn to these behaviorsand their potential consequences in the long run obviouslyare not. Therefore, we suggest that future research shouldexamine when and why leaders use fairness in an instrumen-tal way and how this affects both the organization andemployees in the long run.
Our findings also highlight the importance of examiningthe impact of different types of fairness for different leader-ship styles. Recently, Thau and Mitchell (2010) providedevidence for the negative impact of distributive justice in sit-uations where employees are confronted with an abusivesupervisor, while we showed that distributive justice pro-tects employees against the (potential) harmful conse-quences of self-serving leaders. Moreover, whenemployees are confronted with an autocratic leader (i.e., aleader acting in a pushy way in the decision-making pro-cess), distributive justice has neither a beneficial nor a detri-mental effect for employees’ emotions (De Cremer, 2007).Taken together, these different studies reveal that the effectof (distributive) justice varies for different leadership styles.
1 We also tested for moderated mediation following the procedure described in Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007). The obtained results (seeAppendix) were similar to the ones described in our Results section and also confirm Hypothesis 3.
56 J. Camps et al.: Distributive Justice and Leaders’ Self-Serving Behavior
Therefore, we agree with De Cremer and Tyler (2010) andsuggest that future research should further explore the mod-erating role of justice with regard to different leadershipstyles and the processes underlying these relationships.
Our findings also add to a wide range of studies thathave explored the interaction between procedural justiceand distributive justice (see Brockner & Wiesenfeld,1996). More specifically, we extend this line of researchby exploring the interplay between distributive justice andbias suppression, an aspect of procedural justice that hasreceived little attention. Our findings indicated that the rela-tion between self-serving leadership and people’s emotionalreactions is stronger when distributive justice is low ratherthan high, which is in line with the majority of previousresearch indicating that procedural justice is especiallyimportant when people experience a lack of distributive jus-tice (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). We believe futureresearch should further explore the range of procedural fair-ness rules in relation to distributive justice.
Finally, our findings add to ethical leadership research byshowing that fair (and thus ethical) behavior is able to reducethe undesirable negative consequences of self-servingactions. Leaders indeed sometimes can be viewed as self-serving but also fair at the same time. Ethical leadershipresearch could therefore explore different patterns of goodand bad behavior and how the weights that are attributedto each affect employees’ outcomes. Moreover, this researchalso suggests that themotives to be fair and ethical are impor-tant aspects of ethical leadership, a line of research that hasreceived little attention. Nevertheless, leaders can act fairand ethically even though their motives are inherently selfish.Future research therefore could focus on whether the leader’smotivation to be fair is relevant for employees’ outcomes.
Limitations and Suggestionsfor Future Research
Although our research contributes to the existing literature inseveralways, it is not without limitations. First, as the findingsof Study 2 were obtained from the same source (i.e., employ-ees), we cannot completely discard the possibility that ourfindings can beexplainedbycommon-method bias.However,in line with suggestions to minimize common-method bias(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), respon-dents participated completely anonymous. Moreover, werevealed that the relationship between self-serving leadershipand employees’ feelings of harm is moderated by distributivefairness. As common-method bias has been shown todecrease the sensitivity of moderation tests (Evans, 1985),we believe it is not a likely explanation for our findings.
A second limitation of Study 2 is that our cross-sectionaldesign did not allow us to draw causal interferences withregard to the relationship between employees’ feelings ofharm and self-serving leadership. However, previousresearch suggested ‘‘bad’’ leadership as a cause rather thana consequence of negative employee outcomes (e.g., Tepper,2000). Moreover, the experimental design of Study 3allowed us to confirm the proposed causal relationship
between self-serving leadership and employees’ emotions.Taken together, we feel confident about the described cau-sality of our arguments and results.
One could also argue that a limitation of our studies liesin the fact that throughout this article we discussed the mod-erating role of outcome fairness with regard to people’semotional reactions, while we manipulated outcome favor-ability (rather than outcome fairness) in Study 3. However,despite the fact that both concepts have a distinct conceptualmeaning, outcome fairness and outcome favorability are notonly strongly related (e.g., r = .68 and r = .75; see, respec-tively, Blader & Tyler, 2003; Brockner et al., 2003), theyalso interact in a similar way with procedural justice withregard to several dependent variables (Skitka et al., 2003).Indeed, both outcome fairness and outcome favorability pro-tected employees against the emotional consequences of aself-serving leader (which closely resembles bias suppres-sion). Therefore, although we used the term outcome fair-ness (or distributive justice) throughout this manuscript,our findings provide support for the buffering role of bothoutcome fairness and outcome favorability for people’semotional reactions in the face of a self-serving leader.
A final limitation of our research is the discriminantvalidity of the SSLS. Although we found a high correlationbetween self-serving leadership and abusive supervision,there is a clear distinction in content between the items ofthe SSLS and the items that measure abusive supervision.Also, CFA (see Study 1b and 1c) favored a three-factormodel over a two-factor model, thereby indicating thatself-serving leadership and abusive supervision are best trea-ted as distinct. Therefore, we do not believe that self-servingleadership and abusive supervision refer to exactly the samebehavior but rather are two distinct subdimensions of ‘‘bad’’leadership. Future research should explore the existence ofsuch a higher-order construct and its relation with differentconceptualizations of ‘‘bad’’ leadership (e.g., abusive super-vision) that are used in today’s literature.
Conclusion
In sum,wewere able to show that perceived outcome fairnessis importantwith regard to employees feeling less harmed andfeeling less negative as a result of their leader’s self-servingbehavior. The irony of these findings, however, is that fairnessperceptions might be used in an instrumental way to assertone’s personal (dis)advantage. As such, this leaves self-serv-ing actions unquestioned and might eventually result in theleader feeling supported in his/her self-serving behavior.Despite the devastating consequences for organizations inthe long term, it seems that as long as employees receive theirshare, they will not judge self-serving leaders harshly.
Acknowledgments
The first and second authors contributed equally. This workwas supported by STRT1/10/013TBA from the ResearchFund of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
J. Camps et al.: Distributive Justice and Leaders’ Self-Serving Behavior 57
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regressions: Testingand interpreting interactions. New York, NY: Sage.
Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants ofworkplace victimization: The effects of hierarchical statusand conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26,171–193.
Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization:Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review ofPsychology, 60, 717–741.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model ofprocedural justice: Defining the meaning of a ‘‘fair’’ process.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 747–758.
Brockner, J., Heuer, L. B., Magner, N., Folger, R., Umphress, E.,Van den Bos, K., . . . Siegel, P. A. (2003). High proceduralfairness heightens the effect of outcome favorability on self-evaluations: An attributional analysis. Organizational Behav-ior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 51–68.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrativeframework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactiveeffects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin,120, 189–206.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethicalleadership: A social learning perspective for constructdevelopment and testing. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizationaljustice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal ofApplied 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.
De Cremer, D. (2004). The influence of accuracy as a function ofleader’s bias: The role of trustworthiness in the psychologyof procedural justice. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 30, 293–304.
De Cremer, D. (2006). When authorities influence followers’affect: The interactive effect of procedural justice andtransformational leadership. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 15, 322–351.
De Cremer, D. (2007). Emotional effects of distributive justice asa function of autocratic leader behavior. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 37, 1385–1404.
De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). The effects of trust inauthority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92, 639–649.
De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2010). On being the leader andacting fairly: A contingency approach. In D. De Cremer, R.Van Dick, & J. K. Murnighan (Eds.), Social psychology andorganizations (pp. 39–65). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects ofcorrelated method variance in moderated regression analysis.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,36, 305–323.
Gino, F., Moore, D. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). No harm, nofoul: Explaining the outcome bias in ethical judgments.Manuscript in preparation.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development ofmeasures for use in survey questionnaires. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 1, 104–121.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms.London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.5: User’sreference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific SoftwareInternational.
Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing and testing a measure for theethical culture of organizations: The corporate ethical virtuesmodel. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 923–947.
Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice inperformance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions.Journal of Management, 21, 657–669.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equitytheory? New approaches to the study of fairness in socialrelationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research(pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works:Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. In B. M.Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizationalbehavior (Vol. 24, pp. 181–223). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Good-ness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effectof sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–410.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact ofleadership style and emotions on subordinate performance.Leadership Quarterly, 13, 545–559.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff,N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research:A critical review of the literature and recommended reme-dies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports inorganizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal ofManagement, 12, 531–544.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resam-pling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effectsin multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,40, 879–891.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Address-ing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, andprescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42,185–227.
Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. A.(2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confir-matory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal ofEducational Research, 99, 323–337.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in theworkplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and inter-actional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,434–443.
Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are outcomefairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psycholog-ical constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social JusticeResearch, 16, 309–341.
Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). All is wellthat ends well, at least for proselfs: Emotional reactions toequality violation as a function of social value orientation.European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 767–783.
Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2006). Violatingequality in social dilemmas: Emotional and retributivereactions as a function of trust, attribution, and sincerity.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 894–906.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision.Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations:Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Man-agement, 33, 261–289.
58 J. Camps et al.: Distributive Justice and Leaders’ Self-Serving Behavior
Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulationimpairment? Tests of competing explanations of the super-visor abuse and employee deviance relationship throughperceptions of distributive justice. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 95, 1009–1031.
Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used bycitizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law &Society Review, 22, 103–136.
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Procedural strategies for gaining deference:Increasing social harmony or creating false consciousness? InJ. M. Darley, D. M. Messick, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Socialinfluences on ethical behavior in organizations (pp. 69–87).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model ofauthority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191).New York, NY: Academic Press.
Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010).Unethical behavior in the name of the company: Themoderating effect of organizational identification and posi-tive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizationalbehavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 769–780.
Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertaintymanagement by means of fairness judgments. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., & Lind, E. A. (1998). Whendo we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,1449–1458.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & Van Knippenberg, B.(2007). Leadership and fairness: Taking stock and lookingahead. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 16, 113–140.
Jeroen Camps
Department of PsychologyUniversity of LeuvenTiensestraat 102, Box 37253000 LeuvenBelgiumTel. +32 16 326067Fax +32 16 326055E-mail [email protected]
Appendix
Results for the mediation of the relation between leadership and negative emotions by uncertainty for different levels ofdistributive justice
