The interactive effects of procedural justice and exchange ideology on supervisor‐rated commitment

By L. Witt, K. Kacmar, Martha C. Andrews. 2001

109 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/589446f44e68809d7b333ff4cf4f9a91a3d9a334

How researchers see this paper

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

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Antecedents and Outcomes of Employees' Trust in Chinese Joint Ventures (2003, methodology): “Following the work of Blau (1964), social exchange theory assumes that individuals’ social interactions are driven by rational self-interest ( Witt, Kacmar and Andrews, 2001 ).”
To share or not to share: modeling knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a moderator (2007, unknown): “For example, given that a company expects organizational commitment or co-worker congruence to affect knowledge sharing, individuals with low exchange ideology may further amplify the effects because they are less concerned about the effects of sharing knowledge than those with high exchange ideolog”
Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects ☆ (2006, background): “First, few studies have explored justice moderators with behavioral reactions, with outcomes instead consisting of either fairness perceptions (e.g., Joy & Witt, 1992; Sweeney et al., 1991) or attitudinal outcomes (e.g., Schmitt & Dorfel, 1999; Witt et al., 2001).”
The role of HRM practices, procedural justice, organizational support and trust in organizational commitment and in-role and extra-role performance (2010, background): “1986 ; Witt, Kacmar and Andrews 2001 ) may influence individual responses to support.”
The effect of bias on the advancement of working mothers: Disentangling legitimate concerns from inaccurate stereotypes as predictors of advancement in academe (2008, background): “For scales about the subordinate target, superiors’ items referred to the target employee (i.e. ‘This employee . . .’), whereas the complementary subordinate items referred to themselves (i.e. ‘I . . .’; see Shore et al., 1995, Witt et al., 2001).”
Exploring the linkages between formal ownership and psychological ownership for the organization: The mediating role of organizational justice (2008, unknown): “Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the organizational allocation of resources (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; Witt, Kacmar, & Andrews, 2001).”