The Mediating Role of Trust on the Relationship

｢지방정부연구｣ 제16권 제1호(2012 봄) : 47～66

□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

between Justice and Performance in Organization

* First author

** Corresponding author

조직공정성과 조직성과간 신뢰의 매개효과

: 구조방정식모형 접근

Kim, Dae-Won*

Park, Cheol-Min**

신뢰는 무형의 사회자본으로 조직의 효율성을 높이기 위한 중요 영향요인이라는 사실에 대해 조직 연구자들의 공감을 얻고 있다. 그 동안 조직성과에 영향을 미치는 다양한 변인들에 대해 많은 연구가 이루어져 왔지만 조직공정성, 신뢰 및 조직성과와의 관련성에 대한 연구는 거의 없는 실정이다. 본 연구는 사회교환론적 시각에서 조직공정성(분배 공정성, 절차 공정성, 상호작용 공정성)이 조직성과 변수(직무만족, 이직의도, 조직몰입, 조직시민행동(OCBI, OCBO), 과업성과)에 미치는 매개변수로서 신뢰(조직신뢰, 상관신뢰)의 효과를 검증하는 데 목적을 둔다. 두 유형의 신뢰의 매개효과를 확인하기 위해 경남지역 공공조직을 대상으로 211개의 유효 표본을 추출하였으며, 분석을 위해서는 LISREL 프로그램을 활용하였다. 분석결과, 조직신뢰에 대해서는 세 유형의 조직공정성이 모두 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났지만, 상관신뢰에 대해서는 상호작용 공정성만이 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 당초 분석모델로서 제시한 신뢰의 완전 매개모델에 비해 부분 매개모델이 더욱 자료 적합도가 높은 것으로 나타났다. 그리고 조직신뢰는 분배 공정성, 절차 공정성이 직무만족, 이직의도, 조직몰입, 개인차원 조직시민행동(OCBO)에 미치는 영향을 부분 매개하는 것으로 나타났지만, 상호작용 공정성은 이들 조직성과 변수를 완전 매개하는 것으로 나타났다. 한편 조직신뢰와는 반대로, 상관신뢰는 상호작용 공정성이 조직시민행동(OCBI, OCBO), 과업성과에 미치는 영향을 완전 매개하는 것으로 나타났다. 이 연구에서는 기존연구에서 산발적으로 취급되던 세 유형의 조직공정성이 모두 망라되었으며, 매개변수 또한 양 유형의 신뢰가 모두 포함되었다. 조직성과 변수 또한 기존연구에서 부분적으로 취급되던 변수들은 모두 포괄함으로서 조직공정성(분배 공정성, 절차 공정성, 상호작용 공정성)->신뢰(조직신뢰, 상관신뢰)->조직성과(직무만족, 이직의도, 조직몰입, 조직시민행동(OCBI, OCBO), 과업성과)간의 인과경로를 설명할 수 있는 통합모형을 구축하고 검증하였다는 점에서 연구 가치를 찾을 수 있다.

주제어 : 조직공정성, 조직신뢰, 상관신뢰, 조직성과

Ⅰ. Introduction

Employees’ positive work attitudes and contributions that go beyond their prescribed or contractually enforceable roles as a source of an organization’s competitive advantage (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997) has precipitated an interest among organizational researchers. As an exchange relationship, the employment relationship may be characterized either as a social or economic exchange. Blau (1964) described social exchange as ‘the voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring and typically do in fact bring from others.’ It entails the notion that ‘one person does another a favor and while there is an expectation of some future return, its exact nature is never specified in advance but must be left to the discretion of the one who makes it.’

Social exchange is therefore, premised on a long-term exchange of favors that precludes accounting and is based on a diffuse obligation to reciprocate. In contrast, a prototype economic exchange rests on a formal contract that stipulates the exact quantities to be exchanged and can be enforced through legal sanctions. Social exchange has provided the conceptual underpinning of research on work attitudes and behaviors (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997) because unlike the specific benefits or commodities involved in an economic exchange, the favors or benefits exchanged are indicative of mutual support and investment in the relationship.

Social exchange in an employment relationship may be initiated by an organization’s fair treatment of its employees. This favor or spontaneous gesture of goodwill on the part of the organization (or its agents) engenders an obligation on the part of employees to reciprocate the good deeds of the organization. Consequently, much research has examined the relationship between an organization’s fair treatment of its employees or organizational justice and work attitudes and behaviors (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001).

The main effect approach that characterized the first wave of organizational justice research (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992) has since been complemented by research that seeks to explain the mechanisms that underpin the reported relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998). Although this stream of research has contributed substantially to explicating the social exchange basis of employee attitudes and behaviors. It is not without limitations.

The Mediating Role of Trust on the Relationship between Justice and Performance in Organization

* First author

** Corresponding author

｢지방정부연구｣ 제16권 제1호(2012 봄)

First, in spite of the tripartite conceptualization of organizational justice, much of this research has not examined all three dimensions of justice simultaneously. For example, Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, and Taylor (2000) examined procedural and interactional justice while Moorman et al. (1998) examined procedural justice. A fuller understanding of the social exchange basis of employee work attitudes and behaviors requires a simultaneous examination of all three dimensions (distributive, procedural and interactional) of organizational justice.

Second, as previously noted, trust has been examined as a mechanism through which organizational justice affects employee outcomes. Unfortunately, this stream of research (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999) examined only trust in supervisor. There is evidence, however, that employees differentiate between multiple exchange partners at the workplace—supervisors, coworkers and management (Becker, 1992). Indeed, Whitener (1997) argued that employees can develop trust in at least two different types of trust- supervisor and organization. Here, the focus on trust in supervisor provides only a limited understanding of how an organization’s fair treatment of its employees is related to their work outcomes.

Finally, based on Hofstede’s (1980) cultural framework, much of this stream of research has been conducted primarily in the individualist cultures of the West (particularly the US) raising questions about the extent to which the findings are generalizable to the collectivist cultures of the East in Korea. An examination of the emergence and functioning of social exchange processes in collectivist Eastern cultures where values differ dramatically from those typically found in a Western context, should enhance our understanding of the motivational underpinnings of employee work attitudes and behaviors in a competitive globalized economy. Consequently, this study sought to address the preceding limitations by testing an integrative social exchange model of organizational justice, trust foci (supervisor and organization), and employee work attitudes and behaviors.

Ⅱ. Theoretical Review and Model

1. Social Exchange Theory and Consequences in Organization

Although Blau’s (1964) formulation highlighted the role of trust in the emergence and maintenance of a social exchange relationship, there is a paucity of research that has examined the role of trust in explicating the social exchange basis of employee work outcomes (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). Instead, much of this stream of research has examined the social exchange mechanisms of perceived organizational support (POS) and leader–member exchange (LMX), reflecting the two social exchange relationships (supervisor and organization) are involved in work (Masterson et al., 2000; Wayne et al., 1997).

Here, POS describes the quality of employee–organization relationship as indexed by employees’ perception of the extent to which their organization cares about their welfare and values their contributions. LMX, on the other hand, describes the quality of the relationship between a supervisor and an employee. Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro (1990), however, invoked trust to explain the demonstrated outcomes of POS. They noted that ‘perceived support would create trust that the organization will fulfil its exchange obligations.' Eisenberger et al.’s (1990) explanation resonates with Blau’s observation that social exchange requires trusting others to discharge their obligations. This study acknowledges the relevance of POS and LMX in understanding the motivational basis of employee work outcomes. As a research on trust in social exchange processes in organizations, this study examined the mediating role of trust.

Figure 1 presents a schematic representation of the model tested in this study. A key outcome examined in this study is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) which describes ‘behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregated promotes the effective functioning of the organization’ (Organ, 1988). Following Williams and Anderson (1991), much of the extant OCB research (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000) has distinguished between individually-directed (OCBI) and organizationally-directed (OCBO) citizenship behaviors. The OCBI or helping dimension (e.g. helping to orient a new employee) has been suggested to benefit the supervisor (Masterson et al., 2000) whereas the OCBO or voice dimension (e.g. making innovative suggestions to improve the department) may benefit both the organization (Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli, 1997) and the supervisor. Of the work attitudes examined (job satisfaction, turnover intentions and organizational commitment), job satisfaction represents a multifaceted construct and may be both a supervisor- and an organization-related outcome (Spector, 1997).

However, given that it has been reported to be more of an organization than supervisor-related outcome (Masterson et al., 2000), we conceptualized job satisfaction as an organization-related work outcome. As shown in Figure 1, the three dimensions of organizational justice are hypothesized to be differentially related to the trust foci of supervisor and organization, which are in turn, differentially related to the employee work outcomes examined in this study. More specifically, trust in organization is posited to mediate the relationship between the organizational justice components and the organization- related outcomes of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and OCBO. In contrast, trust in supervisor is posited to mediate the relationship between interactional justice and the supervisor-related outcomes of task performance, OCBI and OCBO. The literature that underpinned these relationships is reviewed below.

2. Organizational Justice and Consequences in Organization

Organizational justice describes the individual’s and the group’s perception of the fairness of treatment received from an organization and their behavioral reaction to such perceptions (James, 1993). Distributive justice describes the perceived fairness of the outcomes employees receive; procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the means used to determine those outcomes, and interactional justice refers to the quality of interpersonal treatment received at the hands of decision-makers (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997).

Research has consistently found the three dimensions of organizational justice to be related, albeit differentially, to employee work-related attitudes and behaviors (Colquitt et al., 2001). Masterson et al. (2000) reported procedural justice to be related to the organization-referenced outcomes of OCBO and organizational commitment while interactional justice was related to the supervisor-referenced outcomes of OCBI and task performance. In this study, we conceptualized OCBO as an employee’s currency for exchange with both the supervisor and organization. This is because the type of OCBO (e.g. voice) will benefit both the supervisor and the organization.

3. Mediating Role of Trust

Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) defined trust as ‘The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action important to the trustor irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.’ This vulnerability stems from the risk or uncertainty regarding whether the other party intends to and will act appropriately. The degree of vulnerability is enhanced in situations where the parties are interdependent such that the interest of one party cannot be achieved from the other.

As a psychological state, McAllister (1995) distinguished cognition-based trust from affect-based trust. Cognition-based trust describes a rational evaluation of an individual’s ability to carry out obligations and, therefore, reflects beliefs about that individual’s reliability, dependability and competency. In contrast, affect-based trust reflects an emotional attachment that stems from the mutual care and concern that exist between individuals. Although a social exchange-based relationship is characterized by affect-based trust (Chen, Chen, & Meindi, 1998), our conceptualization of trust reflects each of the dimensions (concern for others’ interests, reliability, openness and competence) that has been suggested to additively influence an individual’s trustworthiness (Mayer et al., 1995; Mishra, 1996).

As Blau (1964) noted ‘The establishment of exchange relations involves making investments that constitute commitment to the other party. Since social exchange requires trusting others to reciprocate, the initial problem is to prove oneself trustworthy.’ Consequently, a focal exchange partner’s (organization or supervisor) fair treatment of the other initiates a social exchange relationship with that partner (employee). Over time, these inducements constitute a global schema of history of support (Shore & Shore, 1995) reinforcing the trustworthiness of the exchange partner.

Distributive and procedural justice have been empirically shown to be related to trust in organization (Pearce, Branyiczki, & Bakacsi, 1994). Interactional justice has been argued to be related to trust in supervisor. Further, as supervisors build relational contracts and fulfil employees’ perceptions of the organization’s obligations, employees trust in the organization grows (Whitener, 1997). To equalize or ensure a balance in their exchange, employees will feel obligated to reciprocate the good deeds of the focal exchange partner.

As Blau (1964) noted, ‘By discharging their obligations for services rendered, individuals demonstrate their trustworthiness and the gradual expansion of mutual service.’ Reciprocation, therefore, reinforces and stabilizes trust, the axis upon which social exchange revolves. The obligations that partners incur in social exchange are generally diffuse and are valued as symbols of mutual loyalty, goodwill and broad support. Employees wares for reciprocation have been conceptualized in terms of positive work attitudes and contributions, particularly those that exceed prescribed role requirements.

There is empirical evidence linking trust in organization to organizational commitment, intention to remain, and the civic virtue dimension of citizenship behavior (Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995). Trust in supervisor has also been shown to be related to the supervisor-directed citizenship behavior dimensions of altruism, courtesy, and conscientiousness (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) and a global measure of citizenship behavior (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994).

Following Konovsky and Pugh (1994), we contend that to the extent that trust is a manifestation of social exchange and social exchange underpins the expression of mutual loyalty, goodwill and support, trust will mediate the relationship between organizational justice and the employee work-related attitudes and behaviors. Accordingly, we expect trust in organization to mediate the relationship between the organizational justice dimensions (distributive, procedural and interactional) and the organization-referenced work outcomes. By the same logic, we expect trust in supervisor to mediate the relationship between interactional justice and the supervisor-referenced work outcomes. Based on our discussion as mentioned above, we hypothesized an analysis model as shown in Figure 1.

Distributive

justice

Procedural

justice

Interactional

justice

Trust in

organization

Trust in

supervisor

Job

satisfaction

Turnover

intentions

Organizational

commitment

OCBI

Task

performance

OCBO

Figure 1. Hypothesized fully mediated model

Ⅲ. Methodology

1. Data Sampling

Data were obtained from full-time employees of a public sector organization in Kyungnam Province. Prior to the actual collection of data, the requirements prompting the need to collect data have to be fully understood, as well as how and how much survey groups are selected must be identified, which will show the verification of the study. The research design for this study employed a descriptive survey method. From a review of literature, a survey questionnaire was developed to collect data for the study.

The target population of this study included employees serving local public organizations in Kyungnam Province were used to test the research model. The sample size included all 250 employees of the target population. Data was collected through use of a written questionnaire hand-delivered to participants. Questionnaires were filled out by participants and returned to an intra-departmental mailbox. The survey was carried out between March 2010 and June 2010, and the sample were resultingly returned for a return rate of 82 percent. In addition, demographic information such as employee age, gender, and education was also inquired for more respectively accurate response to each variable on motivation.

The survey subjects who have full-time and permanent appointments with their organizations were questioned to respond to survey questions. Gender was dummy-coded, and age was marked as follows: 1 = below 29, 2 = 30 to 49, and 3 = over 50. Of the 250 employees as a sample, 228 employees returned their questionnaires. After the listwise deletion of 17 employees’ unusable missing cases, the final data consisted of 211 employees’ response. The sample for employees included 159 male and 52 female respondents. Their average age was 36.5 and their average tenure with the organizations was 12.3 years. Over 83.0% of respondents had education to the degree of college above.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants

Items		Frequency	Percentage
Sex	Male	159	75.4
	Female	52	24.6
Age	Below 30	15	7.2
	31-40	109	51.7
	41-50	76	35.8
	Above 51	11	5.3
Tenure	Below 5	24	11.3
	6-10	57	26.8
	11-15	47	22.2
	16-20	38	18.0
	Above 21	45	21.7
Education	Below High School	43	17.0
	College	87	35.3
	University	101	40.2
	Graduate School	19	7.5

2. Scales

1) Distributive Justice

Scales developed by Price and Mueller (1986) were used to measure distributive justice. Items are ‘I am fairly paid or rewarded considering my job responsibilities’ and ‘I am fairly paid or rewarded considering the stresses and strains of my job.’ The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is 0.93.

2) Procedural Justice

Scales by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) that reflect the presence of formal procedures for making decisions were used to measure procedural justice. Items are ‘My present organization has procedures designed to provide opportunities to appeal or challenge a decision’ and ‘My present organization has procedures designed to allow for requests for clarification or additional information about a decision.’ The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is 0.90.

3) Interactional Justice

Scales developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) that reflect the fair use of procedures by an employee’s supervisor were used to measure interactional justice. Items are ‘When decisions are made about my job, my supervisor treats me with kindness and consideration’ and ‘When decisions are made about my job, my supervisor shows concern for my rights as an employee.’ The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is 0.90.

4) Trust in Organization

Scales by Gabarro and Athos (1978), and used by Robinson (1996) were used to measure trust in organization. Items are ‘My employer is not always honest and truthful’ (reverse-scored) and ‘I believe my employer has high integrity.’ The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is 0.82.

5) Trust in Supervisor

Scales by Marlowe and Nyhan (1992) were used to measure trust in supervisor. Response options ranged from (1) ‘nearly zero’ to (7) ‘nearly 100 per cent confidence and trust in my supervisor.’ Items are ‘My level of confidence that my supervisor is technically competent at the critical elements of his/her job’ and ‘When my supervisor tells me something, my level of confidence that I can rely on what he/she tells me.’ The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is 0.93.

6) Job Satisfaction

Scales by Brayfield and Rothe’s (1951) were used to measure job satisfaction. Items are ‘Most days, I am enthusiastic about my job’ and ‘I am seldom bored with my job.’ The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is 0.73.

7) Turnover Intentions

Scales by Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian’s (1974) were used to measure turnover intentions. Response options for two of the items (‘I often think about quitting my job with my present organization’ and ‘I will probably look for a new job within the next year’) ranged from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree.’ The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is 0.77.

8) Organizational Commitment

Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian’s (1974) scale was used to measure affective organizational commitment. Items are ‘I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with my present organization’ and ‘I feel a strong sense of belonging to my present organization.’ The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is 0.85.

9) Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Scales by Tsui et al. (1997) were used to measure OCBO and scales from the extant literature (Williams & Anderson, 1991; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) were used to measure OCBI. Items for OCBO are ‘I am used to make innovative suggestions to improve the department’ and ‘I am used to suggest revisions in work to achieve organizational/departmental objectives.’ Items for OCBI are ‘‘I am used to take the initiative to orient new employees even though it is not part of his/her job description’ and ‘‘I am used to help others with their work when they have been absent even when he/she is not required to do so.’ The alpha reliability for the measure of OCBO is 0.86 and for OCBI is 0.85.

10) Task Performance

Scales by Tsui et al. (1997) were used to measure task performance. Items are ‘‘My  quantity of work is higher than average’ and ‘I am used to strive for higher quality work than required.’ The scale’s alpha reliability is 0.87. All measures were self-reported. Further, response options for all measures (with the exception of trust in supervisor), ranged from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree.’

3. Analysis Method

We used LISREL 8.80(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2008) with maximum likelihood estimation to estimate the factor structure of our measurement model. We first examined the factor structure of the trust foci, and then the factor structure of all the variables in the study including the trust foci. In the second stage of data analysis, we evaluated our hypothesized model by assessing the conditions for mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

In order to provide a stringent test of our model (Platt, 1964), we examined seven alternative nested models (partially mediated) by comparing them with our hypothesized fully mediated model. Further, based on Bollen's (1989) work, we compared our model to a non-nested model. They examined two competing models of how supervisory trust and procedural justice relate to each other. We, therefore, compared the fit of a non-nested (relational) model (the trust foci were hypothesized to be differentially related to the justice dimensions which, in turn, differentially influence the work outcomes examined) to our hypothesized model.

In terms of the structural equation modelling, we were confronted with a relatively small sample size in light of the number of observed indicators. Based on procedures reported in the extant literature (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994; Brooke, Russell, & Price, 1988), we reduced the number of items by creating two indicators for each construct. On the basis of factor analysis results, scores for each indicator were computed as the mean of the scores on the items that constituted each indicator.

Data with listwise deletion of missing values were used for the LISREL analysis resulting in a final sample size of 211. To assess model fit, we used the overall model chi-square measure (χ2), the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Further, we used Akaike’s (1987) information criterion (AIC) to evaluate the relative fit of our best fitting model and the non-nested alternative model. The model with the smaller AIC value is considered the better fitting model (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993).

Ⅳ. Statistical Results

The CFA results of the trust foci indicated that the two-factor model (χ2=193.51, df=86, p<0.01; TLI=0.90, CFI=0.91, GFI=0.84, RMSEA=0.08) relative to the 1-factor model (χ2=596.43, df=88, p<0.01; TLI=0.62, CFI=0.68, GFI=0.57, RMSEA=0.22), provided a better fit to the data. This suggests support for the distinctiveness of trust in organization and trust in supervisor.

Additionally, CFA results of the test of our measurement model revealed support for the 11-factor model indicating the distinctiveness of the 11 constructs used in this study. The chi-square value for the 11-factor model (χ2=246.15, df=152, p<0.01) was significantly lower than that for the null model (χ2=2913.92, df=228, p<0.01) and the one-factor model (χ2=1835.71, df=206, p<0.01). The fit indices also showed a better fit for the 11-factor model (TLI=0.93, CFI=0.93, GFI=0.88, RMSEA=0.05) relative to the one-factor model (TLI=0.30, CFI=0.36, GFI=0.47, RMSEA=0.22).

Table 2 presents the reliabilities and zero-order correlations of the study variables. The alpha reliabilities are 0.75 or higher and, therefore, satisfactory for structural equation modelling (Bollen, 1989). In general, the zero-order correlation results were all in the expected direction, indicating preliminary support for the relationships depicted in Figure 1.

To test the hypothesized model, we assessed the conditions of mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

First, correlation coefficients indicated that distributive justice was correlated with all four outcomes hypothesized ( job satisfaction, turnover intentions, organizational commitment and OCBO); procedural justice was associated with three of four outcomes hypothesized (job satisfaction, turnover intentions and organizational commitment) but not OCBO, and interactional justice was correlated with all six outcomes hypothesized. This pattern of results partially satisfied the first condition of mediation.

Second, hypothesized model results showed that all three organizational justice dimensions correlated with trust in organization, and interactional justice was associated with trust in supervisor.

The third condition of mediation was only partially satisfied as the results showed that: (i) trust in organization was related to job satisfaction, turnover intentions and organizational commitment but not OCBO and (ii) trust in supervisor was positively associated with OCBO and OCBI, and task performance. Consequently, in further tests of the model, we only specified paths for which the antecedents and mediators have significant effects on the specified outcomes.

To evaluate the final condition for mediation, we compared the fit of seven alternative models (partially mediated) to our hypothesized fully mediated model, the results of which are presented in Table 3. As shown in that table, Model 1 and Model 4 provided a better fit relative to the hypothesized fully mediated model. However, on the basis of the fit indices and parsimony, we concluded that of the eight models examined, Model 4 provided the best fit. Additionally, the AIC values showed that Model 4 had a smaller value (AIC=487.64) than the non-nested alternative model (AIC=515.84), thereby reinforcing our finding that Model 4 was the best fitting model.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1	3.18	1.04	(0.93)
2	3.24	0.78	0.37†	(0.90)
3	3.61	0.77	0.58†	0.51†	(0.90)
4	3.81	0.63	0.43†	0.43†	0.51†	(0.83)
5	4.07	0.98	0.27†	0.28†	0.70†	0.30†	(0.93)
6	3.77	0.79	0.59†	0.60†	0.46†	0.55†	0.30†	(0.85)
7	2.23	0.93	-0.43†	-0.30†	-0.42†	-0.39†	-0.26†	-0.51†	(0.79)
8	3.48	0.65	0.47†	0.57†	0.49†	0.66†	0.27†	0.64†	-0.40†	(0.75)
9	3.50	0.55	0.11	0.17*	0.33†	0.10	0.49†	0.01	-0.40	0.14	(0.87)
10	3.51	0.50	0.09	0.11	0.16*	0.01	0.24†	-0.06	-0.11	0.01	0.57†	(0.87)
11	3.46	0.56	0.16*	0.11	0.18*	0.08	0.32†	0.09	-0.16*	0.10	0.60†	0.37†	(0.84)

*: p <0.05, †: p <0.01.

Figures in parentheses are alpha reliabilities

Notes: 1. Distributive justice (DJ), 2. Procedural justice (PJ), 3. Interactional justice (JJ), 4. Trust in organization (TIO), 5. Trust in supervisor (TIS), 6. Organizational, commitment(OC), 7. Turnover intention (TI), 8. Job satisfaction (JS), 9. Task performance (PERF), 10. OCBI, 11. OCBO

Table 3. Model comparisons

Models	χ²	df	Δ χ²	Δ df	TLI	CFI	GFI	RMSEA
1. Hypothesized model	402.42	193	─	─	0.91	0.91	0.80	0.082
2. Model 1a	395.96	190	15.42	3	0.92	0.91	0.81	0.080
3. Model 2b	398.45	191	3.94	2	0.91	0.91	0.80	0.082
4. Model 3c	398.34	189	3.06	5	0.91	0.91	0.80	0.084
5. Model 4d	375.51	187	25.7	6	0.92	0.92	0.81	0.079
6. Model 5e	381.72	184	19.5	8	0.91	0.91	0.81	0.083
7. Model 6f	393.97	185	7.43	7	0.91	0.91	0.80	0.084
8. Model 7g	370.55	181	30.85	11	0.92	0.92	0.81	0.081
9. Model 8h	380.44	177	20.95	15	0.91	0.91	0.81	0.085

Notes:

aIn comparison to the hypothesized model, Model 1 adds path from DJ to JS, TI, OC, and OCBO.

bModel 2 adds path from PJ to JS, TI, and OC.

cModel 3 adds path from IJ to JS, TI, OC, OCBO, PERF, and OCBI.

dModel 4 adds paths from DJ to JS, TI, OC, and OCBO, and adds paths from PJ to JS, TI, and OC simultaneously.

eModel 5 adds paths from DJ to JS, TI, OC, and OCBO, and adds paths from IJ to JS, TI, OC, OCBO, PERF, and OCBI simultaneously.

fModel 6 adds paths from PJ to JS, TI, and OC, and adds paths from IJ to JS, TI, OC, OCBO, PERF, and OCBI simultaneously.

gModel 7 adds paths from DJ to JS, TI, OC, and OCBO, PJ to JS, TI, and adds paths from IJ to JS, TI, OC, OCBO, PERF, and OCBI simultaneously.

hNonnested alternative model that posited justice dimensions as mediators of the relationship between trust and employee work outcomes.

TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index;

RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Figure 2 presents the LISREL estimates for Model 4. As shown in that figure: (i) interactional justice had indirect effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions and organizational commitment through trust in organization, and indirect effects on OCBO, OCBI and task performance through trust in supervisor; (ii) distributive justice had both direct and indirect effects through trust in organization on job satisfaction, turnover intentions and organizational commitment; and (iii) procedural justice had indirect effects (through trust in organization) on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The fit indices for Model 4 were: χ2=375.51 (df=187; p<0.01); TLI=0.92, CFI=0.92, GFI=0.81, RMSEA=0.079. These results suggest that the data fit the alternative partially mediated Model 4 moderately well (Medsker, Williams, & Holaham, 1994).

Distributive

justice

Procedural

justice

Interactional

justice

Trust in

organization

Trust in

supervisor

Job

satisfaction

Turnover

intentions

Organizational

commitment

OCBI

Task

performance

OCBO

.19*

.39**

.19*

.67**

.44**

-.23**

.27**

.33**

.28**

.53**

.18*

.23**

-.30**

-.02

.36**

.20**

.05

*: p <0.05, **: p <0.01.

Figure 2. Path estimates of the best fitting partially mediated model

Ⅴ. Discussion

This study sought to examine an integrative social exchange model of employee work attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, the study examined the potential mediating influence of the trust foci of supervisor and organization on the relationship between organizational justice and employee work attitudes and behaviors. Results of zero-order correlational and confirmatory factor analyses revealed the two trust foci to be interrelated but distinct constructs. This finding suggests that employees can develop trust in specific individuals such as supervisor and generalized representatives such as the organization (Whitener, 1997).

The findings further revealed partial support for our proposition that the two trust foci will fully but differentially mediate the relationship between the organizational justice dimensions and the work attitudes and behaviors examined. The relationship between distributive and procedural justice and the employee work-related attitudes were partially mediated by trust in organization. In contrast, the influence of interactional justice on all three work attitudes was fully mediated by trust in organization, as predicted. Although trust in organization partially mediated the relationship between the organizational justice dimensions (with the exception of interactional justice which was fully mediated) and the work attitudes, the findings nevertheless reinforce the social exchange basis of employee work attitudes. Human resource practices that facilitate the fair treatment of employees not only engender trust in organization but also directly influence their work attitudes.

As predicted, our findings revealed interactional justice to be a primary source of trust in supervisor. Our findings seem to suggest that when procedures and their enactment are separated, it is interactional but not procedural justice that is related to trust in supervisor. This finding dovetails with Cropanzano and Greenberg’s (1997) suggestion that procedural justice applies to the exchange between an employee and his/her organization, whereas interactional justice applies to the exchange between an employee and his/her supervisor. Consistent with our prediction, trust in supervisor fully mediated the relationship between interactional justice and the work-related behaviors of OCBO, OCBI and task performance.

This pattern of findings further reinforces the social exchange basis of employee work-related behaviors as currency for reciprocating their fair treatment by the supervisor, and the trust such treatment engenders in the supervisor. The differential antecedents and outcomes of the trust foci of supervisor and organization further underscores the distinctiveness of the two constructs. Although OCBO has traditionally been treated as an organizational-level outcome (Masterson et al., 2000) and should have been influenced by trust in organization, our findings did not support our prediction. Our measure of OCBO had both departmental and organizational referents (‘I am used to make suggestions to improve department’, and ‘I am used to suggest revisions in work to achieve organizational or departmental objectives’). This may have led respondents to respond to the items that measured OCBO with a supervisor rather than an organizational frame of reference. In general, our findings indicate that the two trust foci, supervisor and organization, are not only differentially related to the work outcomes examined but also differentially mediated the relationships between the organizational justice dimensions and these work outcomes.

The findings reported here should be interpreted against a backdrop of the study’s limitations.

First, the cross-sectional data precludes any inference of causality. Although our SEM results revealed that our hypothesized model fitted the data better than the non-nested model. Consequently, the direction of causality cannot be unequivocally established and will have to be examined using longitudinal data.

Second, our reliance on data obtained from a predominantly male sample constrains the generalizability of our findings to women. Research evidence suggests that reactions to justice perceptions are moderated by gender. For example, Brockner and Adsit (1986) reported that men tend to be more sensitive to issues of distributive justice than women.

Third, our respondents were full-time, public sector employees. Given the stability of employment in public sector, our respondents were involved in a social exchange-based employment relationship. Consequently, our findings may not be applicable to employees (e.g. part-time employees) in an economic exchange-based employment relationship. Indeed, there is research evidence that suggests that because of the economic exchange-based nature of their employment relationship, part-time employees engage less in citizenship behavior and have lower affective commitment than full-time employees (Van Dyne & Ang, 1998; Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001).

Fourth and related to the preceding limitation is the stability of Blau’s (1964) social exchange model when applied to an employment relationship. In a stable employment relationship characterized by high levels of fairness and trust (as was the context in which this study’s data were obtained), a social exchange model will predominate. However, in an employment context characterized by low levels of fairness and trust (engendered by, for example, perceptions of psychological contract breach), the employment relationship will undergo a qualitative change and an economic exchange will predominate. Consequently, the findings of this study may not generalize to an employment context undergoing a transition from a social to an economic exchange model of the employment relationship.

Lastly, our reliance on self-reports suggests that the reported relationships could potentially be attributed to method variance. Results of confirmatory factor analysis revealed, however, that the constructs were distinct, hence the results cannot be attributed to method variance. Furthermore, the magnitude of the correlations shown in Table 1 indicates relatively low levels of shared variance among the self-report constructs. Nevertheless, there is a need to replicate this study to ascertain the validity of our findings.

These limitations are counterbalanced by the strengths of this study. First, this study examined an integrative social exchange model. It not only examined the three dimensions of organizational justice but also the trust foci of supervisor and organization, as well as myriad work attitudes and behaviors. The findings, therefore, highlight the social exchange relationships that differentially underpin employee work attitudes and behaviors. Second, although we did not exhaust potential rival models, examination of plausible rival models ensured a stringent test of our hypothesized model. Finally, the results of this study demonstrate the generalizability of the social exchange underpinnings of work attitudes and behaviors.

The findings of this study suggest a number of implications. From a theoretical perspective, the differential influence of the social exchange-related variables highlight a need for researchers to employ not only a tripartite conceptualization of organizational justice but also multiple trust foci, and simultaneously investigate their links with outcome variables. The often contradictory findings in the extant literature may be attributable to the failure, on the part of researchers, to examine integrative social exchange models of employee work attitudes and behaviors.

From a practical perspective, the findings reinforce the notion of trust as the axis on which a social exchange-based employment relationship revolves and the consequent challenge for organizations to discover how to effectively manage trust. First, organizations should consider the trust building capacity of their human resource practices when formulating these practices. This is because practices that promote fair treatment of employees constitute sources of trust in the organization (Whitener, 1997). Relatively, the findings highlight the pivotal role supervisors play in building trust towards themselves and the organization (Deluga, 1994; Whitener, 1997). For this reason, organizations should train supervisors in the fair enactment of human resource practices. There is empirical evidence that training in procedural justice enhances employees’ perceptions of supervisor fairness which they reciprocate with citizenship behaviors (Skarlicki & Latham, 1996).

The increasing paradigmatic status of social exchange as a framework for understanding the motivational underpinnings of employee work attitudes and behaviors, suggest continued research to more fully understand the social exchange basis of these attitudes and behaviors. First, future research should examine a more comprehensive social exchange model that incorporates not only organizational justice and the trust foci but, also, the social exchange mechanisms of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange. Although trust has been noted to be integral to both perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange, no research has as yet, examined these propositions. Second, while a preponderance of research has examined the mechanisms through which the social exchange-related variables influence their reported outcomes, there is a relative paucity of research that has examined the moderators of these relationships. Lastly, future research should examine the source of employee perceptions of the organizational justice dimensions simultaneously.

References

Bagozzi R, Heatherton T. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: application to self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling 1: 35–67.

Baron R, Kenny D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social  psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–1182.

Becker TE. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal 35: 232–244.

Blau P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley: New York.

Bollen KA. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley: New York.

Brayfield AH, Rothe HF. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 35: 307–311.

Brockner J, Adsit L. (1986). The moderating impact of sex on the equity-satisfaction relationship: a field study. Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 585–590.

Brooke PP, Russell DW, Price JL. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 139–145.

Chen CC, Chen XP, Meindi JR. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review 23: 285–304.

Colquitt JA, Conlon DE,Wesson MJ, Porter C, Ng KY. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 425–445.

Cropanzano R, Greenberg J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through the maze. In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 317–372), Cooper C, Robertson IT (eds). John Wiley & Sons: New York.

Deluga RJ. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 67: 315–326.

Eisenberger R, Fasolo PM, Davis-LaMastro V. (1990). Effects of perceived organizational support on employee diligence, innovation, and commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology 53: 51–59.

Folger R, Konovsky MA. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal 32: 115–130.

Gabarro JJ, Athos P. (1978). Interpersonal Relations and Communications. Prentice-Hall: New York.

Hofstede G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.

James K. (1993). The social context of organizational justice: cultural, intergroup and structural effects on justice behaviors and perceptions. In Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management (pp. 21–50), Cropanzano R (ed.). Erlbaum: Hillsdale, CT.

Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Scientific Software International, Inc.: Chicago.

Konovsky MA, Pugh SD. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal 37: 656–669.

Marlowe HA, Jr, Nyhan RC. (1992). Development and Psychometric Properties of the Organizational Trust Inventory. Unpublished paper: University of Florida.

Masterson SS, Lewis K, Goldman BM, Taylor MS. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal 43: 738–748.

Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20: 709–734.

McAllister DJ. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38: 24–59.

McFarlin DB, Sweeney PD. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 35: 626–637.

Medsker GJ, Williams LJ, Holahan PJ. (1994). A review of current practice for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management 20: 439–464.

Mishra AK. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust. In Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 261–287), Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Moorman RH, Blakely GL, Niehoff BP. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal 41: 351–357.

Niehoff BP, Moorman RH. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal 36: 527–556.

Organ DW. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books: Lexington, MA.

Pearce JL, Branyiczki I, Bakacsi G. (1994). Person-based reward systems: a theory of organizational reward practices in reform-communist organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 15: 261–282.

Pillai R, Schriesheim CB,Williams ES. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study. Journal of Management 25: 897–933.

Platt J. (1964). Strong in inference. Science 146: 347–353.

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Paine JB, Bachrach DG. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management 26: 513–563.

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB. (1997). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: a review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance 10: 133–151.

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Moorman RH, Fetter R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 1: 107–142.

Porter LW, Steers RM, Mowday RT, Boulian PV. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology 59: 603–609.

Price JL, Mueller CW. (1986). Distributive justice. In Handbook of Organizational Measurement (pp. 122–127), Price JL, Mueller CW (eds). Pitman: Marshfield, MA.

Robinson SL. (1996). Trust and breach of psychological contrast. Administrative Science Quarterly 41: 574–599.

Shore LM, Shore TH. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. In Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of the Workplace (pp. 149–164), Cropanzano RS, Kacmar KM (eds). Quorum: Westport, CT.

Skarlicki DP, Latham GP. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 161–169.

Spector PE. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Stamper CL, Van Dyne L. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: a field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22: 517–536.

Tsui AS, Pearce JL, Porter LW, Tripoli AM. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal 40: 1089–1121.

Van Dyne L, Ang S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal 41: 692–703.

Van Dyne L, LePine JA. (1998). Helping voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal 41: 108–119.

Wayne SJ, Shore LM, Liden RC. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal 40: 82–111.

Whitener EM. (1997). The impact of human resource activities on employee trust. Human Resource Management Review 7: 389–404.

Williams LJ, Anderson SE. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management 17: 601–617.

김대원(金大源): 경북대학교에서 행정학 박사학위(논문: 지방세 수입예측 모형, 1991)를 취득하고, 현재 신라대학교 보건행정학과 교수로 재직하고 있다. 주요 관심분야는 조직관리론, 지방재정론, 재무행정론 등이며, 주요 논문으로는 “The Influence of Leader-Member Exchange on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in Public Sector”(2011), “An Empirical Analysis on the Relationship Between Leadership Styles and Motivation in School Organization"(2010), “The Impact of Pay for Performance System and the Like on Employees' Motivation"(2009) 등이 있다. 주요 저서로는 ｢지방재정제도의 이론과 실제｣(공저, 2002), ｢행정학원론｣(공저, 2004) 등이 있다.

<E-mail: dwkim@silla.ac.kr / 논문접수일: 2012. 02. 17 / 심사개시일: 2012. 02. 24 / 심사완료일: 2012. 05. 07>

박철민(朴喆敏): 경북대학교에서 행정학 박사학위(논문: 공․사조직의 조직몰입 영향변인 및 결과변인 비교, 2002)를 취득하고, (재)부산인적자원개발원 연구위원을 거쳐, 현재 제주국제대학교 사회복지학과 조교수로 재직하고 있다. 주요 관심분야는 조직관리, 인적자원개발, 복지행정 등이며, 주요 논문으로는 “The Effect of Transformational Leadership and Perceived Organizational Support on Organizational Citizenship Behavior”(2011), "Preferences on the Merit Pay System in the Public Agency"(2010), “The Impact of Eustress and Distress Predictors on the Health of Leaders in Local Government”(2009) 등이 있다.

<E-mail: cmpark@jeju.ac.kr>