Malleability of Perceived Leader Justice: A Theoretical Model on the Role of Situational Affect and Leader Gender

Year 2025, Volume: 18 Issue: 2, 427 - 437, 31.08.2025

Uzay Dural

https://doi.org/10.37093/ijsi.1626425

Abstract

Organizational scholars have often overlooked changes in employees’ perceptions of fairness regarding outcomes, procedures, and interactions at work. However, growing empirical evidence suggests significant temporal variability in justice perceptions. Despite the importance of this evidence, the mechanisms underlying changes in perceptions of leader fairness remain poorly understood. Scholars have called for theoretical models that explore the conditions under which fairness perceptions occur within individuals. This article aims to bridge the affective and justice literatures by proposing a model for understanding changes in fairness perceptions over time. It aims to contribute to the justice literature by clarifying how employees might adjust their perceptions of leader fairness through their situational affect. Additionally, it underscores the importance of leader gender in predicting change in employees’ perceived injustice of their leaders.

Keywords

Organizational justice , contextual affect , leader gender.

Algılanan Lider Adaletinin Değişebilirliği: Durumsal Duygulanımın ve Lider Cinsiyetinin Rolü Üzerine Kuramsal Model

Abstract

Örgütsel araştırmacılar, çalışanların iş yerinde sonuçlar, prosedürler ve etkileşimlere ilişkin adalet algılarındaki değişimleri sıklıkla göz ardı etmişlerdir. Ancak, artan görgül kanıtlar, adalet algılarında önemli ölçüde zamansal değişkenlik olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu kanıtların önemine rağmen, yöneticilere ilişkin adalet algılarındaki değişimlerin altında yatan mekanizmalar yeterince anlaşılmamıştır. Araştırmacılar, bireyler arasında adalet algılarındaki değişimlerin hangi koşullar altında gerçekleştiğini keşfedecek teorik modeller geliştirilmesi çağrısında bulunmuşlardır. Bu makale, zaman içinde adalet algılarındaki değişimlerin anlaşılmasına yönelik bir model önererek duygu ve adalet literatürleri arasındaki bağlantıyı kurmayı amaçlamaktadır. Makale, çalışanların durumluk duygularıyla yöneticilere ilişkin adalet algılarını nasıl değiştirebileceklerini açıklığa kavuşturarak adalet literatürüne katkı sağlamayı hedeflemektedir. Ayrıca, çalışanların liderlerine ilişkin adaletsizlik algılarındaki değişimin öngörülmesinde liderin cinsiyetinin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

Örgütsel adalet , bağlamsal duygu , lider cinsiyeti.

References

• Ambrose, ML. & Cropanzano, R. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: An examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 266-275.
• Barclay, L. J., Bashshur, M. R., & Fortin, M. (2017). Motivated cognition and fairness: Insights, integration, and creating a path forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), 867.
• Bashshur, M. R., Barclay, L. J., & Fortin, M. (2023). Of headlamps and marbles: A motivated perceptual approach to the dynamic and dialectic nature of fairness. Organizational Psychology Review, 20413866231199068.
• Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it’s unfair: A quantitative synthesis of affect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 286–295.
• Barsky, A., Kaplan, S.A. & Beal, D.J. (2011). Judgments are just feelings? The role of affect in the formation of organizational fairness. Journal of Management, 37, 248-279.
• Beal, D.J. & Weiss, H.M. (2003). Methods of ecological momentary assessment in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 440-466.
• Bernhard‐Oettel, C., Eib, C., Griep, Y., & Leineweber, C. (2020). How do job insecurity and organizational justice relate to depressive symptoms and sleep difficulties: A multilevel study on immediate and prolonged effects in Swedish workers. Applied psychology, 69(4), 1271-1300.
• Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2005). How, When, and Why Does Outcome Favorability Interact with Procedural Fairness? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 525–553). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• 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., & 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.
• Colquitt, J. A., Hill, E. T., & De Cremer, D. (2023). Forever focused on fairness: 75 years of organizational justice in Personnel Psychology. Personnel Psychology, 76(2), 413-435.
• Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209.
• Cropanzano, R., Li, A., & Benson III, L. (2011). Peer justice and teamwork process. Group & Organization Management, 36(5), 567-596.
• Csikszentmihalyi M & Larson R (1987). Validity and reliability of the Experience-Sampling Method. J Nerv Ment Dis.,175, 526-36.
• Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological review, 109(3), 573.
• Elfenbein, H.A. (2007). Emotion in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 315-386.
• Fisher, C.D. & To, M.L. (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 865–877.
• Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. Advances in organizational justice, 1(1-55), 12. Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 3–34.
• Guo, J. (2012). The formation and change of overall justice perceptions: consideration of time, events, and affect (Doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.
• Hill, E. T., Matta, F. K., & Mitchell, M. S. (2021). Seeing the glass as half full or half empty: The role of affect-induced optimistic and pessimistic states on justice perceptions and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 1265-1287.
• Hillebrandt, A., & Barclay, L. J. (2013). Integrating organizational justice and affect: New insights, challenges, and opportunities. Social Justice Research, 26, 513-531.
• Holtz, BC, & Harold, CM (2009). Fair today, fair tomorrow? A longitudinal investigation of overall justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1185-1199.
• Jones, D.A. & Martens, M.L. (2009). The mediating role of overall fairness and the moderating role of trust certainty in justice–criteria relationships: the formation and use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1025-1051.
• Jones, D.A. & Skarlicki, D.P. (2012). How perceptions of fairness can change: A dynamic model of organizational justice. Organizational Psychology Review, Advance online publication Doi: 10.1177/2041386612461665.
• Konradt, U., Oldeweme, M., Krys, S., & Otte, K. P. (2020). A meta‐analysis of change in applicants' perceptions of fairness. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(4), 365-382.
• Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Lord, R. G., Epitropaki, O., Foti, R. J., & Hansbrough, T. K. (2020). Implicit leadership theories, implicit followership theories, and dynamic processing of leadership information. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 49-74.
• Maas, M., & Van den Bos, K. (2009). An affective-experiential perspective on reactions to fair and unfair events: Individual differences in affect intensity moderated by experiential mindsets. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 667-675.
• Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Koopman, J., & Passantino, L. G. (2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 743-770.
• Qin, X., Ren, R., Zhang, Z. X., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). Fairness heuristics and substitutability effects: Inferring the fairness of outcomes, procedures, and interpersonal treatment when employees lack clear information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 749.
• Rubenstein, A. L., Allen, D. G., & Bosco, F. A. (2019a). What’s past (and present) is prologue: Interactions between justice levels and trajectories predicting behavioral reciprocity. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1569-1594.
• Rubenstein, A. L., Kammeyer‐Mueller, J. D., Wang, M., & Thundiyil, T. G. (2019b). “Embedded” at hire? Predicting the voluntary and involuntary turnover of new employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(3), 342-359.
• Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Glick, P., & Phelan, J. E. (2012). Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 167-227). Academic Press.
• Rupp, D. E. & Paddock, E. L. (2010). From justice events to justice climate: A multilevel temporal model of information aggregation and judgment. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 13, 239-267.
• Scher, S.J. & Heise, D. (1993). Affect and the perception of injustice. Advances in Group Process, 10, 223-252.
• Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2003). Mood as information. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 296 –303.
• Scollon, C. N., Kim-Prieto, C., & Diener, E. (2003). Experience sampling: Promises and pitfalls, strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 5−34.
• Silva, M. R., & Caetano, A. (2014). Organizational justice: What changes, what remains the same? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2013-0092
• Sharot, T., & Garrett, N. (2016). Forming beliefs: Why valence matters. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.11.002
• Soenen, G., Melkonian, T., & Ambrose, M. L. (2017). To shift or not to shift? Determinants and consequences of phase shifting on justice judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 798-817.
• Stamarski, C. S., & Hing, L. S. (2015). Gender inequalities in the workplace: the effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers' sexism. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1400. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01400
• Tremblay, M., Gaudet, M.-C., & Parent-Rocheleau, X. (2017). Good Things Are Not Eternal: How Consideration Leadership and Initiating Structure Influence the Dynamic Nature of Organizational Justice and Extra-Role Behaviors at the Collective Level. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(2), 211-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817738941
• Xu, X. M., Du, D., Johnson, R. E., & Lu, C. Q. (2022). Justice change matters: Approach and avoidance mechanisms underlying the regulation of justice over time. Journal of Applied psychology, 107(7), 1070.
• Van den Bos, K. (2007). Hot cognition and social justice judgments: The combined influence of cognitive and affective factors on the justice judgment process. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of justice and affect (pp. 59-82). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
• Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell.