The impact of subordinate disrespect on leader justice
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2017-0213 |
| Pages | 2-20 |
| Published date | 04 February 2019 |
| Date | 04 February 2019 |
| Author | Camilla M. Holmvall,Sonya Stevens,Natasha Chestnut |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
The impact of subordinate
disrespect on leader justice
Camilla M. Holmvall
Departments of Psychology and Management, Saint Mary’s University,
Halifax, Canada, and
Sonya Stevens and Natasha Chestnut
Department of Psychology, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada
Abstract
Purpose –Employees are affected by the interpersonal treatment received from leaders (i.e. interactional
justice), especially when being informed of negative outcomes (Brockner, 2010). Although respectful
treatment may be expected from leaders generally, little is known about when leaders are more likely to
display interactional justice and whether less interactional justice might be acceptable under certain
circumstances. Drawing on reciprocity theory (e.g. Gouldner, 1960), and leader–member exchange (LMX)
theory (e.g. Gerstner and Day, 1997), the purpose of this paper is to test the hypothesis that employees who
are disrespectful and inconsiderate toward their supervisors (i.e. who are themselves interactionally unjust)
would and should receive less interactional justice when being informed of a negative outcome.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors conducted three experimental studies (Ns ¼87, 47 and 114),
in the context of leaders communicating a layoff decision to their subordinates.
Findings –The results supported the predictions albeit the effect of subordinate interactional justice on
supervisor justice was modest, yet consistent, across studies.
Research limitations/implications –The findings are consistent with reciprocity theory and the LMX
literature and suggest that leader actions when communicating bad news are dependent on employee
conduct. Limitations of the studies include a primary reliance on students as participants and the
measurement of behavioral intentions rather than behavior.
Originality/value –The studies are among the first to examine interactional injustice perpetrated by
subordinates toward their leaders, and its impact on leader behavior when delivering negative outcomes.
There is a paucity of literature understanding the causes of leader fairness behavior, in addition to a
consideration of unfairness from perpetrators of lower positional power.
Keywords Quantitative, Fairness, Reciprocity, Leader–member exchange (LMX), Interactional justice,
Leader behaviour, Subordinate
Paper type Research paper
Research has shown that employees are affected by the quality of interpersonal treatment
they receive at the hands of leaders, termed interactional justice ( for reviews see Bies, 2001,
2005; Colquitt et al., 2001). High-quality treatment from leaders is especially important when
employees are being informed of negative outcomes (e.g. poor performance reviews or layoff
decisions; Brockner, 2010; Brockner and Wiesenfeld, 1996). Indeed, if leaders treat employees
disrespectfullywhen communicating negativeoutcomes, employees may perceivethe leader’s
actions as akin to kicking them when they are already down (Folger and Pugh, 2002; Folger
and Skarlicki, 2001).
Although employee perceptions of interactional justice generally lead to positive
consequences (e.g. greater trust in leaders, organizational citizenship behaviors; Colquitt,
2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001) and interactionally just
treatment might be expected normally (Miller, 2001), little is known about when leaders will
be more likely to display interactional justice toward employees and whether, in fact, less
interactional justice displayed by a leader might be acceptable, or even expected, under
certain circumstances. The current series of experimental studies examined the role of
employees’own interpersonal treatment toward leaders in determining the leader’s
Personnel Review
Vol. 48 No. 1, 2019
pp. 2-20
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-07-2017-0213
Received 19 July 2017
Revised 11 January 2018
18 February 2018
Accepted 3 March 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
2
PR
48,1
interactional justice behavior when communicating a negative outcome. Specifically,
drawing on interrelated notions of reciprocity (e.g. Gouldner, 1960), leader–member
exchange (LMX; e.g. Dulebohn et al., 2012; Gerstner and Day, 1997; Graen and Uhl-Bien,
1995) and belongingness (Cornelis et al., 2013), we examined two questions. First, we
examined whether disrespectful (vs respectful) employees –specifically, those who exhibit
less interactional justice themselves –would elicit less interactional justice from a leader
(Studies 1 and 2). Second, we examined whether individuals think that leaders should
display less interactional justice toward such employees (Study 3).
What is interactional justice?
Individuals perceive interactional justice when they receive high-quality interpersonal
treatment from others (Bies, 2001). In the context of supervisor–subordinate relationships,
subordinates perceive interactional justice when theyare treated with politeness, dignityand
respect by authorities and are provided with adequate, sincere and timely explanations for
outcome allocation decisions (e.g. layoff decisions; Bies, 2001, 2005; Bies and Moag, 1986).
Although leadersmay be expected to exhibit thesebroad behaviors indicative of interactional
justice (e.g. courtesy and civility,Folger and Bies, 1989), research suggeststhat –legitimately
or not –they do not always do so (Folger and Skarlicki, 2001; see also Scott et al., 2009).
Interactional justice is typically conceptualized and studied as stemming from a leader in
the context of decision making; however, recent theory and research suggests that such a
focus may, in fact, be unnecessarily and inappropriately restrictive. Indeed, Bies (2001)
suggests that employees are concerned about the interpersonal treatment they receive in
their day-to-day interactions with leaders irrespective of whether decisions are being made
and communicated. Moreover, a growing research literature suggests that interactional
injustice need not only be directed downward from those of higher organizational power,
but can also emanate from coworkers (e.g. Lavelle et al., 2007), one’s work team (Li and
Cropanzano, 2009) and customers (Holmvall and Sidhu, 2007; Rupp and Spencer, 2006), as
well as from family and friends (Mikula et al., 1990).
We argue that interactional (in)justice can also be displayed by subordinates toward
their supervisors (see also Gilliland, 2008). Indeed, in his review on disrespect and the
experience of injustice, Miller (2001) notes that humans feel entitled to respectful and
dignified treatment from others as well as explanations for events or actions that
are personally relevant. We posit that these expectations would not be limited to those
situations in which the acting party holds positional power over the recipient. Thus, in line
with Miller’s arguments, a subordinate who is interpersonally rude and disrespectful and
fails to provide explanations or accounts for requests or actions that have implications for
the leader may be seen by the leader as behaving unfairly. Indeed, such treatment may
signal a lack of respect for the leader and serve as an indicator that the leader is not viewed
by the subordinate as a legitimate authority (e.g. see Atwater and Yammarino, 1996; Tyler
and Lind, 1992). In general, leaders may expect, and feel they deserve, respectful treatment
and clear information sharing from their subordinates as part of their position power (Bass,
1990). A sense of unfairness is linked to the feeling that one is not receiving the treatment to
which one feels entitled (Miller, 2001).
Although we could find no empirical research examining interactional injustice stemming
from subordinates, a number of related literatures suggest that disrespectful and inappropriate
interpersonal behavior from subordinates toward their supervisors occurs and has deleterious
consequences. For example, research on workplace aggression has highlighted negative
consequences (e.g. physical and psychological strain) of supervisor-targeted aggression
(e.g. Scales et al., 2014). Moreover, research on contra-power harassment, primarily examining
the behavior of students toward professors, suggests a growing concer n with rude,
disrespectful and/or harassing conduct (DeSouza, 2011; Swinney et al., 2010). For example,
3
Subordinate
disrespect on
leader justice
To continue reading
Request your trial