When organizational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members ☆

By Russell E. Johnson, C. Selenta, R. Lord. 2006

290 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract In two studies, we examined the joint effects of employed participants’ self-concept levels and perceptions of fairness on organizational attitudes and citizenship behavior intentions. We examined the effects of chronic self-concept activation in Study 1, whereas we primed the working self-concept in Study 2. Combining the results of both studies, we found support for our hypotheses that particular self-concept levels and organizational justice dimensions interact to predict various work-related outcomes. Specifically, we observed interactions between the relational self-concept and interactional justice, and between the collective self-concept and procedural justice, such that the justice–outcome relationships were stronger for those experiencing higher activation on the relevant self-concept level. Thus, as hypothesized, justice information is weighted differently depending on the particular level of self-concept that is active. In addition, interesting direct effects of employees’ self-concepts were also observed. We discuss the implications of these findings and the importance of considering the self-concept in conjunction with organizational justice.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/168f527aaa42c0080904b7736e79803dc562bb61

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Intergroup Leadership in Organizations: Leading Across Group and Organizational Boundaries (2012, background): “…relational identity can build on earlier work operationalizing other aspects of social self-definition: personal identity, interpersonal relational identity, and collective identity, such as found in the work of Mael and Ashforth (1992), Singelis (1994), and Johnson, Selenta, and Lord (2006).”
A self-regulation approach to understanding citizenship behavior in organizations (2012, background): “…established and stable norms, it is likely that employees will engage in a pattern of the same, or relatively similar, OCBs (Lord, Hanges, & Godfrey, 2003) because external factors activate working self-concepts (Johnson et al., 2006) and initiate patterns of behavior (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000).”
The role of moral emotions and individual differences in consumer responses to corporate green and non-green actions (2015, methodology): “Relational and collective self-concepts were measured by fiveitem subscales each from the Levels of Self-Concept Scale (Johnson et al. 2006).”
Leader self-definition and leader self-serving behavior (2010, background): “Once a specific self-schema is activated by the social context, it will directly regulate and guide behavior (Brown & Smart, 1991) by moderating the use of social information (Johnson et al., 2006).”
When does a social norm catch the worm? Disentangling social normative influences on sustainable consumption behaviour (2020, methodology): “A collective self-concept revolves around social group membership and favourable inter-group comparisons that give rise to self-worth (Johnson et al., 2006; Xie, Bagozzi, & Grønhaug, 2015).”
Identity Negotiation at Work (2009, background): “Conversely, targets with interdependent situated identities are more attuned to the interpersonal treatment that they receive from the organization (Johnson et al., 2006).”
Consumer responses to corporate social irresponsibility: The role of moral emotions, evaluations, and social cognitions (2019, background): “The relational self-concept refers to the extent people define themselves through dyadic or interpersonal relationships, and the collective self-concept refers to the degree people define themselves in terms of their social group memberships (Johnson et al., 2006).”