Supervisor integrity empowers employees to advocate for diversity in problematic climates.

Supervisors struggle to encourage employees to engage in diversity advocacy-key behaviors that help promote more equitable workplaces. Research hints that one reason for this struggle may be that employees lack the empowerment to engage in such behaviors. Drawing on perspectives that conceptualize diversity advocacy as a moral and virtuous behavior, we integrate research on leadership and empowerment to suggest that supervisor integrity can empower observers to engage in diversity advocacy. In exploring boundary conditions, we draw on performance models to counterintuitively suggest that this effect is strongest when employees perceive a negative diversity climate, as employees see the greatest need for change in these contexts. We test our theory in three complementary studies: A field sample with employees, a preregistered experimental vignette study, and an additional preregistered immersive experiment with a behavioral dependent variable. Our results contribute to theory on diversity, empowerment, and organizational climate. Additionally, we make an empirical contribution by developing and validating a four-item diversity advocacy scale. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Matches measure: A visual scale of job burnout.

The evidence is overwhelming and ubiquitous; job burnout is a prevalent occupational syndrome with substantial costs. Although prevention and treatment are vital, both necessitate identifying job burnout itself, yet existing measures are long and sometimes proprietary. Because lengthy surveys are generally seen as too time-consuming, especially in contexts where rapid identification of job burnout is paramount and may be associated with increased measurement error for people experiencing burnout, there is a strong need for a quick and regular assessment of job burnout. Not surprisingly, many scholars have resorted to shortening existing scales. However, those efforts have seldom attended to the corresponding validation concerns of this approach. Our work aims to develop and validate a visual burnout scale using matches that can be deployed rapidly and consistently, as visual scales provide a way for people to more easily articulate their feelings. Our novel analytic approach entailed Bayesian comparisons of the effect sizes generated with our measure to published meta-analytic effect size estimates, evaluations of the convergence of our measure with existing job burnout scales, and comparisons of the overlap between our measure and existing scales as they relate to burnout antecedents and outcomes. Across multiple preregistered studies surveying over 1,200 participants in various industries, our results demonstrate that our visual scale shows strong convergent validity, criterion-related validity, and test-retest reliability. Our measure also compares favorably with the three most widely used burnout measures in organizational scholarship (the Maslach Burnout Inventory, Shirom-Melamed Job Burnout Measure, and Oldenburg Job Burnout Inventory) and, in some cases, demonstrated incremental validity beyond existing measures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

It's not only what you do, but why you do it: How managerial motives influence employees' fairness judgments.

Although past research demonstrates that perceived fairness leads to many benefits, it also tends to assume that fairness flows almost exclusively from justice adherence. We instead reason that when employees form fairness judgments, they consider not only the extent to which supervisors adhere to justice but also why supervisors do so. In particular, our work outlines three distinct theoretical pathways to fairness. Supervisory justice motives affect fairness judgments via supervisors' justice rule adherence (behavioral) and via employees' attributed motives (attributional), such that prosocial (self-interest) motives are positively (negatively) related to fairness judgments after controlling for justice. We also reason that people jointly consider supervisory motives and justice when forming fairness judgments (interactive), such that the relationship between prosocial (self-interest) motives and fairness judgments is more positive (negative) when justice is lower versus higher. We test our predictions across six studies, both survey and experimental. Our results support the three pathways for prosocial justice motives and the behavioral and attributional (but not interactive) pathways for self-interest justice motives. Our work suggests organizations trying to promote fairness should avoid inadvertently instilling a self-interest justice motive in their supervisors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives.

Although a flurry of meta-analyses summarized the justice literature at the turn of the millennium, interest in the topic has surged in the decade since. In particular, the past decade has witnessed the rise of social exchange theory as the dominant lens for examining reactions to justice, and the emergence of affect as a complementary lens for understanding such reactions. The purpose of this meta-analytic review was to test direct, mediating, and moderating hypotheses that were inspired by those 2 perspectives, to gauge their adequacy as theoretical guides for justice research. Drawing on a review of 493 independent samples, our findings revealed a number of insights that were not included in prior meta-analyses. With respect to social exchange theory, our results revealed that the significant relationships between justice and both task performance and citizenship behavior were mediated by indicators of social exchange quality (trust, organizational commitment, perceived organizational support, and leader-member exchange), though such mediation was not apparent for counterproductive behavior. The strength of those relationships did not vary according to whether the focus of the justice matched the target of the performance behavior, contrary to popular assumptions in the literature, or according to whether justice was referenced to a specific event or a more general entity. With respect to affect, our results showed that justice-performance relationships were mediated by positive and negative affect, with the relevant affect dimension varying across justice and performance variables. Our discussion of these findings focuses on the merit in integrating the social exchange and affect lenses in future research.

Explaining the justice-performance relationship: trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer?

Past research has revealed significant relationships between organizational justice dimensions and job performance, and trust is thought to be one mediator of those relationships. However, trust has been positioned in justice theorizing in 2 different ways, either as an indicator of the depth of an exchange relationship or as a variable that reflects levels of work-related uncertainty. Moreover, trust scholars distinguish between multiple forms of trust, including affect- and cognition-based trust, and it remains unclear which form is most relevant to justice effects. To explore these issues, we built and tested a more comprehensive model of trust mediation in which procedural, interpersonal, and distributive justice predicted affect- and cognition-based trust, with those trust forms predicting both exchange- and uncertainty-based mechanisms. The results of a field study in a hospital system revealed that the trust variables did indeed mediate the relationships between the organizational justice dimensions and job performance, with affect-based trust driving exchange-based mediation and cognition-based trust driving uncertainty-based mediation.