Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm
Organizational
Organizational justice: what justice
changes, what remains the same?
Maria Rita Silva
Business Research Unit and Center for Social Investigation and Intervention, 23
Instituto Universitario de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, and
Antonio Caetano Received 14 June 2013
Revised 27 September 2013
Business Research Unit, Instituto Universitario de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Accepted 15 October 2013
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine workers distributive and interactional justice perceptions at
three different moments in time over a period of eight years, assess their degree of stability and
identify their most stable antecedents and outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach Data was collected through an overlapping repeated
cross-sectional design. Of the participants involved, 334 were surveyed in 2000, 259 participated in
2004, and 285 participated in 2008.
Findings Distributive justice is more stable than interactional justice. Organizational support is the
most stable predictor of distributive justice, and the quality of supervisor practices is the most stable
predictor of interactional justice. Contrary to expected, interactional justice has a stronger relationship
to workers attitudes directed both at the organization and supervisor, and at the immediate work
context.
Originality/value This study adopts a long-term perspective covering an eight-year period.
Furthermore, it focuses on two dimensions of justice that have been less studied over time.
Keywords Evolution, Employee attitudes, Distributive justice, Interactional justice
Paper type Research paper
Distributive justice Perceptions of the fairness of the outcomes (benefits or punishment) as well as
evaluations of the end state of the allocation process (Cropanzano and
Greenberg, 1997) such as pay or promotion opportunities (Brockner and Siegel,
1996)
Reward allocation corresponding to performance inputs, and equal social
comparisons of reward with relevant referents, is perceived as fair (Adams,
1965). Other allocation rules such as like equality, providing each employee
roughly the same compensation, and need, providing benefits based on personal
requirements can also be followed (Leventhal, 1976)
Interactional justice Quality of the relationships between individuals within the organization, or
fairness of interpersonal treatment received during the implementation of a
procedure. It relates to the aspects of the communication process between the Table I.
source and the recipient of justice, such as treating an employee with dignity, Definitions of distributive
courtesy, honesty, and respect (Bies and Moag, 1986) and interactional justice
JOCM figures, so is more likely change over time. Loi et al. (2009) tested this hypothesis in a
27,1 longitudinal study. Workers evaluations of procedural and distributive justice,
assessed at time 1, interacted with daily interactional justice evaluations, assessed over
20 days, and predicted the workers daily satisfaction. Thus, structural aspects of
justice interacted, in a stable way over time, with social aspects that tended to
fluctuate. However, Loi et al. (2009) only assessed distributive justice perceptions at
26 time 1, which does not allow a direct comparison interactional justice.
In the present study, we assessed the levels of both distributive and interactional
justice perceptions in three different moments in time, making it possible to compare
their evolution. Based on the distinction between structural and social aspects of
justice, and between events and entities based justice perceptions, we expect that
average distributive justice perceptions will tend to be more stable over time, than
those of interactional justice perceptions which will tend to fluctuate more. Thus we
present the following hypothesis:
H1. Distributive justice perceptions will be more stable than interactional justice
perceptions, throughout time.
Method
Procedure
The senior staff responded to questionnaires in 2000, 2004, and 2008. The present study
applies an overlapping repeated cross-section design. Repeated surveys are a series of
separate cross-sectional surveys. No effort is made to ensure that any of the same
elements are sampled for the individual surveys (Kalton and Citro, 1995). Unlike panel
studies, overlapping surveys are designed to maximize the degree of overlap while taking
into account changes in population composition over time (Kalton and Citro, 1995).
Although participants in the three waves were not paired, tenure and position were
taken into account to maximize the degree of overlapping between survey waves. Data
was collected from individuals who perform the same function in a specific department
of a single company. A high percentage of respondents whose tenure far exceeds the
time interval of data collection for this study, and we eliminated from the sample those
participants that had lower levels of tenure at time 3.
In recent years, this type of design has been increasingly used in organizational
research. Brown et al. (2008), drawing on data from 1998 to 2004, used a repeated
cross-sectional design to explore the relationship between human resource
management practices and job satisfaction. Kowske et al. (2010) examined
generational differences in work attitudes across five generations. In the context of a
real merger and acquisition, Melkonian et al. (2011) explored how the relative
importance of distributive and procedural justice judgments to employees willingness
to cooperate, shifts over time.
Some advantages of repeated cross-sectional design are very useful for
management research. First, it facilitates the collection of information over longer
periods of time than is normally possible with classic longitudinal designs. Typically, Organizational
an employment relationship develops over years, and not over just the few weeks or justice
months measured in most organizational longitudinal designs. Major organizational
events, like mergers or radical changes in operations and management practices, will
definitely have a short-term impact on employees attitudes and behaviors, but the
most important outcomes can only be properly understood years later. The repeated
cross-sectional design provides a more complete view of the evolution of worker 29
attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Brown et al., 2008; Tsitsianis and Green, 2005). Through
the use of this type of study design, researchers could make better use of a hitherto
untapped resource largely available in organizations archive data.
Second, repeated cross-sectional designs allow research to overcome a practical
problem of longitudinal research, participants concerns regarding anonymity. In
classical longitudinal studies, the observations of individual participants have to be
paired. This is done, either through personal information, like name or position, or
through some kind of code devised by researchers. Most researchers go to great
lengths to guarantee confidence and anonymity of data. However, due to ethical
concerns, companies may be reluctant to provide this data and explain to the
employees in the sample that they will be monitored over time (Melkonian et al.,
2011). Particularly in work settings, participants often express concern over the pairing
procedure. We also know that anonymity concerns tend to increase social desirability
bias, with repeated cross-sectional designs this problem is removed altogether.
Third, with longitudinal designs there are coverage drawbacks associated with
selecting and tracking individual respondents in the sample. After recruitment of the
first wave, the study is restricted even though changes in the population may occur, so
they are most suited for stationary populations (Frethey-Bentham, 2011), and a
companys work force is not stationary.
Lastly, longitudinal data are susceptible to maturation and history effects.
Maturation effects involve an internal process, while history effects involve an external
event that occurs between the two measurements (Cook and Campbell, 1979). Also,
there is invariably a fair amount of attrition, meaning that the strength of associations
can be under or overestimated. In fact, in longitudinal studies, as much as 80 percent of
the initial sample has been reported to be lost over a one-year period (e.g. Fugate et al.,
2002).
We do not mean to say that all research that explores time should use repeated
cross-sectional designs. Classical longitudinal designs are preferable for measuring
individual change (Frethey-Bentham, 2011). But, longitudinal study designs per se do
not guarantee valid causal inferences (Taris and Kompier, 2003). Since we were not
interested in the evolution of employees individual attitudes over time, but rather in
the evolution of the relationships between general work attitudes, we opted for an
overlapping repeated cross-sectional survey. Compared to a non-rotating panel survey,
the limited membership of sample elements acts to reduce the problems of panel
conditioning and panel attrition, and the continual introduction of new samples helps
to maintain an up-to-date sample of a changing population (Frethey-Bentham, 2011).
Sample
Of the participants involved in this study, 334 were surveyed in 2000, 259 in 2004, and
285 in 2008. As can be observed in Table II, most participants were male, more than 40
JOCM
2000 (%) 2004 (%) 2008 (%)
27,1
n 334 259 285
Sex
Male 76.8 72.8 81.9
Female 23.2 27.2 18.1
30
Age
Up to 30 years 17.1 19.3 2.2
31 to 40 years 26.5 32.1 31.3
41 to 50 years 27.1 21.3 36.2
More than 50 years 29.3 27.3 30.2
Habilitations
Up to 9th grade 16.2 1.2 26.6
Up to 12th grade 4.3 0 13.1
Middle school 12.5 13.2 6.9
University graduate 57.8 68.8 39.1
Post-graduation 9.2 16.8 14.2
Tenure
Up to five years 24.5 33.5 ...
Six to ten years 14.2 21.9 26.3
11 to 15 years 14.8 8.4 15.9
More than 15 years 46.5 36.3 57.8
Table II.
Percentages of Occupation
socio-demographic Supervisor 60.1 43.7 46.8
variables Subordinate 39.9 56.3 53.2
years old, and had completed some form of higher education. Most participants had
been working for the organization for more than ten years and about half were
supervisors (Table II).
Measures
The organizational justice dimensions scale was adapted from Folger and Konovsky
(1989) and Niehoff and Moorman (1996). These and the other variables, except
satisfaction, were assessed using a Likert scale, from 1 strongly disagree to 5
strongly agree. Distributive justice perceptions were measured through three items
(e.g. Considering my skills and effort, my overall compensation is fair).
Interactional justice perceptions were assessed through two items (e.g. When
making decisions about my work, the supervisor treats me with respect and
consideration).
Communication was operationalized through two items adapted from Robert and
OReillys (1974) scale (e.g. We received adequate information to perform our tasks).
Leadership practices were assessed through four items of the scale by Bass and Avolio
(1997) (e.g. My supervisor often tells me what he thinks about my work).
Organizational support was measured by six items of Eisenberger et al.s (1986) scale
(e.g. The company is concerned with the fact that my well-being). Organizational
affective commitment was assessed by five items on the Mayer and Allen scale (1997)
(e.g. Id be very happy if I spent the rest of my career at the company).
Satisfaction was measured through items adapted from the Spector scale (1997) and Organizational
preceded by the words Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following justice
aspects of your work. Satisfaction with the work environment, with the organization
and with the job itself, were operationalized by two items each (e.g. The working
environment at company X, The operation of the business at company X and The
work you do at company X, respectively). Satisfaction with the supervisor was
operationalized by three items (e.g. The relationship with your direct supervisor). The 31
response scale ranges from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied)
Organizational culture was assessed using the Cameron and Quinn (1999)
competing values scale. Each cultural dimension was assessed by six items. The items
were paired in groups of four and presented to participants as Characteristics that
may be typical of the company. Participants were asked to distribute 100 points
among the items within each group, assigning the highest score to the feature that was
the most accurate description of their company. Corresponding respectively to support,
innovation, goals and rules, and organizational cultures, examples would be: The
company defines success based on human resource development, team work and
employee commitment; The company defines success based on innovation; The
company defines success based on the results achieved; The company defines
success based on efficiency, and planning and low production costs.
Results
In order to evaluate reliability and internal consistency we calculated the Cronbachs
Alpha, or the correlation between items, over various moments in time. As can be
observed in Table III, these levels allowed us to continue our analysis.
In Table IV we can see that all variables were evaluated above the midpoint of the
scale. Employees show positive distributive and interactional justice perceptions,
positive assessment of communication and leadership practices, positive
organizational support perceptions and high satisfaction and commitment levels.
The preponderance of the rules culture dimension over the other cultural dimensions is
evident: (year 2000: t (311) 36.65, p # 0.001; year 2004: t (253) 37.63; year 2008:
t (321) 40.39). Thus, we can assume that the companys organizational culture is
characterized by an appreciation of formal rules and procedures (Table IV).
Our first hypothesis proposes that distributive justice will tend to remain stable
over the years, while interactional justice perceptions will tend to fluctuate over time.
To test this hypothesis, we did a multiple linear regression analysis using the Enter
method, with the years as predictors, and distributive and interactional justice
perceptions as criterion variables. The years had been previously re-coded and paired
for the comparison (e.g. 2000 recoded as 0, and 2004 recoded as 1). As can be observed
in Table V, the data supports the first hypothesis.
Although there are no significant differences in distributive justice in the different
years, the interactional justice levels significantly differ between years 2000 and 2004;
and between 2004 and 2008 (B a 2 0.15, p # 0.001; B a 2 0.09, p # 0.05
respectively). Interactional justice perceptions are consistently higher than distributive
justice perceptions (year 2000: t (327) 81.47, p # 0.001; year 2004: t (258) 62.38,
p # 0.001, year 2008: t (337) 73.89, p # 0.001). The highest levels of interactional
justice were reported in the year 2000 (M 3.7, SD 0.8) and they decreased
significantly between 2000 and 2004 (M 3.5, SD 0.9). In the year 2008 (M 3.5,
SD 1.0), the interactional justice levels remained significantly lower than those
registered in 2000 (Table V).
Discussion
This study had two main goals: first, to examine the evolution of workers distributive
and interactional justice perceptions over a period of eight years in order to assess their
degree of stability or change; second, to identify their most stable antecedents and
outcomes. We expected that distributive justice perceptions would be more stable than
the interactional justice perceptions. In fact, while there were no significant differences
in distributive justice perceptions over the years, levels of interactional justice
fluctuated significantly between 2000 and 2004 and between 2000 and 2008.
These findings support the distinction between: structural aspects of justice related
to organizational policies, which tend to be stable over time and relate to distributive
justice perceptions; and social aspects of justice related to daily interaction with
specific organizational agents, such as the supervisor (Greenberg, 1994). The findings
are also in line with the distinction between: event justice, which focuses on workers
Organizational
Interactional justice Distributive justice
R 2a R 2a justice
Year Ba t (step1) Ba t (step2)
Implications
The present study draws attention to the importance of employees justice perceptions.
It demonstrates that justice perceptions derive from social relations established with
the organization, as a system, and with organizational actors the employee interacts
with daily. The support that workers receive from the organization and the quality of
supervisor practices are important and stable determinants in the development of their
perceptions of justice.
This study also demonstrates that justice perceptions have a continued impact on
workers attitudes and satisfaction. In order to promote positive work attitudes, both
the organizational system and its agents must ensure positive social relationships with
employees. An important question organizations should ask is if the image it tries to
transmit to employees is consistently passed down through by direct supervisors.
Communication and leadership practices are import both for distributive and
interactional justice perceptions. Efforts to establish a fair, transparent system of
salaries and promotions, at the organization level, may not spillover to employees if
communication and direct leadership practices are not consistent with that image.
Timely communications regarding activities and procedures, as well as, frequent
feedback from direct supervisors, are import building blocks of workers justice
evaluations. These factors affect workers evaluations of the way they are treated by
organizational authorities, and of the resources they feel entitled to.
Through the analysis of organizational justice perceptions over time, it is possible to
clarify some aspects of their development and consequences, thus contributing to a
better understanding of their dynamics.
References
Adams, J. (1965), Iniquity in social-exchange, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances In Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Academic, New York, NY, pp. 276-299.
Ambrose, M.L. and Cropanzano, R. (2003), A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: an
examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 266-275.
Ambrose, M.L. and Schminke, M. (2009), The role of overall justice judgments in organizational
justice research: a test of mediation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 491-500.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z., Sun, L. and Debrah, Y. (2007), Antecedents and outcomes of abusive
supervision: test of a trickle-down model, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,
pp. 191-201.
JOCM Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mindgarden, Palo Alto, CA.
27,1
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.F. (1986), Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness,
in Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiations in
Organizations, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.
Blau, P. (2006), Exchange and Power in Social Life: With a New Introduction by the Author,
38 10th ed., Transaction Publications, New Brunswick, NJ.
Brockner, J. and Siegel, P.A. (1996), Understanding the interaction between procedural and
distributive justice, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations:
Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 390-413.
Brown, A., Forde, C., Spencer, D. and Charlwood, A. (2008), Changes in HRM and job
satisfaction, 1998-2004: evidence from the workplace employment relations survey,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 237-256.
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture Based
on the Competing Values Framework, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P. (2001), The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 278-321.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), Justice at the
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 425-445.
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979), Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for
Field Settings, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Cropanzano, R. and Greenberg, J. (1997), Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through
the maze, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 317-372.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M. (2005), Social-exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C.A. and Chen, P.Y. (2002), Using social-exchange theory to distinguish
procedural from interactional justice, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 324-351.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E., Mohler, C.J. and Schminke, M. (2001), Three roads to organizational
justice, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 20, pp. 1-113.
Deaton, A. (1985), Panel data from time series of cross-sections, Journal of Econometrics,
Vol. 30, pp. 109-126.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), Perceived organizational
support, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 500-507.
El Akremi, A., Vandenberghe, C. and Camerman, J. (2010), The role of justice and
social-exchange relationships in workplace deviance: test of a mediated model, Human
Relations, Vol. 63 No. 11, pp. 1687-1717.
Fassina, N.E., Jones, D.A. and Uggerslev, K.L. (2008), Meta-analytic tests of relationships
between organizational justice and citizenship behavior: testing agent-system and
shared-variance models, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 805-828.
Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, NJ.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M. (1989), Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to
pay raise decisions, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 115-130.
Folger, R. and Skarlicki, D.P. (1999), Unfairness and resistance to change: hardship as Organizational
mistreatment, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
justice
Fortin, M. (2008), Perspectives on organizational justice: concept clarification, social context
integration, time and links with morality, International Journal of Management Reviews,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 93-126.
Frethey-Bentham, C. (2011), Pseudo panels as an alternative study design, Australasian
Marketing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 281-292. 39
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J. and Scheck, C. (2002), Coping with an organizational merger over four
stages, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 905-928.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-178.
Greenberg, J. (1994), Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking
ban, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 288-297.
Holtz, B.C. and Harold, C.M. (2009), Fair today, fair tomorrow? A longitudinal investigation of
overall justice perceptions, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 5, pp. 1185-1199.
Kalton, G. and Citro, C.F. (1995), Panel surveys: adding the fourth dimension, innovation,
The European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 25-40.
Kim, T.-Y. and Leung, K. (2007), Forming and reacting to overall fairness: a cross-cultural
comparison, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 104 No. 1,
pp. 83-95.
Kowske, B.J., Rasch, R. and Wiley, J. (2010), Millennials (lack of) attitude problem: an empirical
examination of generational effects on work attitudes, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 265-279.
Leventhal, G.S. (1976), The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations,
in Berkowitz, L. and Walster, W. (Eds), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 9,
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 91-131.
Loi, R., Yang, J. and Diefendorff, J.M. (2009), Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction:
a multilevel investigation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 770-781.
Masterson, S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. and Taylor, M. (2000), Integrating justice and
social-exchange: the different effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relations,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-748.
Melkonian, T., Monin, P. and Noorderhaven, N.G. (2011), Distributive justice, procedural justice,
exemplarity, and employees willingness to cooperate in M&A integration processes:
an analysis of the Air France-KLM merger, Human Resources Management, Vol. 50 No. 6,
pp. 809-837.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and
Application, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Moorman, R.H. (1991), Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 845-855.
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1996), Exploring the relationships between top management
behaviors and employee perceptions of fairness, International Journal of Public
Administration, Vol. 19, pp. 941-961.
Nirmala, M.C. and Akhilesh, K.B. (2006), An attempt to redefine organizational justice: in the
rightsizing environment, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 136-153.
JOCM Nowakowski, J. and Conlon, D. (2005), Organizational justice: looking back, looking forward,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 4-29.
27,1 Olkkonen, M. and Lipponen, J. (2006), Relationships between organizational justice,
identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 202-215.
Pelzer, B., Eisinga, R. and Franses, P.H. (2005), Panelizing repeated cross sections, Quality and
40 Quantity, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 155-174.
Roberts, K. and OReilly, C. (1974), Measuring organizational communication, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 321-326.
Spector, P.E. (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Spector, P.E. and Brannick, M.T. (2010), Common method issues: an introduction to the feature
topic in organizational research methods, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 403-406.
Taris, T.W. and Kompier, M. (2003), Challenges in longitudinal designs in occupational health
psychology, Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Tsitsianis, N. and Green, F. (2005), Can the changing nature of jobs account for national trends
in job satisfaction?, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 401-429.
Further reading
Binder, D.A. and Hidiroglou, M.A. (1988), Sampling in time, in Krishnaiah, P.R. and Rao, C.R.
(Eds), Handbook of Statistics, Vol. 6, North Holland, New York, NY, pp. 187-211.
Caldwell, S., Liu, Y., Fedor, D.B. and Herold, D.M. (2009), Why are perceptions of change in the
eye of the beholder? The role of age, sex, and tenure in procedural justice judgments,
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 437-459.
Greenberg, J., Bies, R.J. and Eskew, D.E. (1991), Establishing fairness in the eyes of the
beholder, in Giacalone, A. and Rosenfeld, P. (Eds), Applied Impression Management:
How Image-making Affects Managerial Decisions, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 111-132.
Schwettmann, L. (2012), Competing allocation principles: time for compromise?, Theory and
Decision, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 357-380.
Corresponding author
Maria Rita Silva can be contacted at: maria.rita.silva@iscte.pt