Japanese Psychological Research 2002, Volume 44, No. 2, 107 112 Short Report Blackwell SHORT REPORT Science, Ltd Conflict resolution and procedural fairness in Japanese work organizations KEI-ICHIRO IMAZAI 1,2 Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Department of Psychology, Tohoku University, Kawauchi, Sendai 980-8576, Japan KEN-ICHI OHBUCHI Department of Psychology, School of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, Kawauchi, Sendai 980-8576, Japan Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine short-term and long-term effects of perceived fairness, and to examine relational factors effects of procedural fairness in organizational conflicts between employees and supervisors among the Japanese. We asked 154 Japanese employees working in companies to rate their perception of conflicts as well as attitudes towards their own companies. We found that both perception of procedural and distributive fairness produced short-term effects (satisfaction with outcome of conflicts) and long-term effects (positive organizational attitudes). Perceived procedural fairness was increased by appropriate treatment of the supervisors, but our prediction that this effect would be moderated by the employees identification with organizations was not supported. Key words: procedural fairness, conflict resolution, organization. In the traditional employment system which is characterized by life-long employment and seniority, employees of Japanese business companies have generally not been very concerned about fairness, believing that they would be treated equally in the long term, even when they experience unfairness on some occasions. Now that they face possible largescale lay-offs or more competitive merit systems, Japanese employees may become more concerned with fairness, judging fairness of treatment in a more short-term fashion, instead of accepting any company decision with trust (Morishima, 1997). The research dealing with conflict between employees and employers (Shapiro & Brett, 1993) or conflicts between employees and supervisors (Huo, Smith, Tyler & Lind, 1996) revealed that perceived fairness in conflict resolution not only has short-term effects such as satisfaction with or acceptance of outcomes, but also has long-term effects such as an increase in positive organizational attitudes. Researchers have assumed that distributive fairness increases satisfaction with outcomes because it is based on the perceived quality of outcomes. On the other hand, procedural fairness increases not only satisfaction of outcomes, but also increases positive organizational attitudes because it is the results of cognitive appraisal of organizational systems or structures related to the conflict resolution (Folger & Konovski, 1989). Ohbuchi, Imazai, Sugawara, Tyler, and Lind (1997) found the short-term effects of perceived fairness among Japanese employees, although they did not 1 Kei-ichiro Imazai was supported as a Research Fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. 2 Current affiliation: Sendai City School Counsellor, Sendai, Japan. 2002 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
108 K. Imazai and K. Ohbuchi distinguish the effects of distributive and procedural fairness. The long-term effects of fairness in conflict resolution have not yet been examined with Japanese business employees. These issues were the subjects for the present study. Distributive fairness is judged according to three rules: equity, equality, and need. In organizational situations, employees may apply these rules to the outcomes of conflicts. Based on research findings with employees of business companies in the U.S.A. (Greenberg, 1990), we predicted that, among employees of Japanese companies, those who perceived the outcomes of conflicts as fair in the distributive term would be more satisfied with the outcomes than those who did not perceive this (Hypothesis 1). They may be motivated to appraise the quality of procedures used for conflict resolution independently of whether the outcomes were favorable or not (Lind & Tyler, 1988), and the perception of procedures may affect their reactions to conflict. Therefore, we predicted that, among Japanese employees, those who perceived procedural fairness in the conflict resolution would be satisfied with the outcomes of conflict (Hypothesis 2). Folger and Konovski (1989) found that perceived procedural fairness increased positive organizational attitudes but perceived distributive fairness did not, and interpreted these findings to demonstrate that the judgment of procedural fairness is shaped by appraisal of organizational systems or structures, while the judgment of distributive fairness is focused on just the specific outcome. Based on these findings, we predicted that, among Japanese business employees, those who perceived conflict resolution as more fair in the procedural term would increase positive organizational attitudes than those who did not perceive it (Hypothesis 3). Tyler and Lind (1992) argued that participation in the procedures enhanced the employee s social identity, a sense of membership in the organizations, which in turn generated their perception of fairness of the organizational processes. Furthermore, in their relational model of procedural fairness, they assumed that people feel group pride or high self-esteem as organizational members when authorities of organizations treat them appropriately. Based on this model, we predicted that, among Japanese employees, those who felt being appropriately treated by their supervisors would perceive procedural fairness in conflict resolution (Hypothesis 4). For this relational effect of procedural fairness, people must identify with their groups, valuing the respect given within the groups. Analyzing conflicts of employees with their supervisors in a U.S. state university office, Huo et al. (1996) found that the employees perceived the conflict resolution as fair in the procedural term when they were appropriately treated by supervisors who were of the same ethnic group, but not when the supervisors were of a different ethnic group. Huo et al. interpreted that only the respect from authorities of groups with which people identify may enhance their self-esteem. This finding suggests that group identity moderates the relational effects on procedural fairness. Therefore, we predicted that a supervisor s appropriate treatment would increase a Japanese business employee s perception of procedural fairness only when the employee strongly identified with his or her organization (Hypothesis 5). In order to examine the above hypotheses regarding fairness, we asked Japanese business employees to rate their own experiences of conflict with supervisors. Method We asked 15 Japanese business persons who graduated from the department of psychology of a public university in a past decade to distribute our questionnaire to their non-managerial colleagues. In the covering letter we asked the employees to return the completed questionnaires directly to the Department of Psychology at Tohoku University. In this way, we distributed the questionnaire to 300 Japanese business persons and obtained 154 responses (58 women, 85 men and 11 undefined). The respondents mean ages were 27.3 years,
Conflict resolution and procedural fairness 109 Table 1. Items of variables in this study Appropriate treatment by supervisor Did the supervisor try to handle the problem sincerely? Did the supervisor respect you as a member of the company during the conflict resolution? Did the supervisor consider your position during the conflict resolution? How much satisfaction did you feel in your discussion with your supervisor? Did the supervisor try to handle the problem to suit his/her convenience? Was the supervisor prejudiced in his/her judgment? Did the supervisor explain his/her opinion to you? Favorability of outcome On the whole, was the outcome relatively good for you? Overall, how well were your expectations satisfied? Procedural fairness How fair was the method used to make decisions regarding the conflict? How appropriate was the method used for resolving the conflict? How fair was the method used to resolve the conflict? Distributive fairness Was the outcome fair for all the participants? How fair was the outcome you received? Job satisfaction Did you feel more satisfied with your company after the event than before? Did you feel more satisfied with the current work after the event than before? Commitment After the event, did you feel more strongly than before that you were an important member of your company? Did you wish to contribute to your company more strongly after the event than before? Were you motivated to work in your company more strongly after the event than before? Satisfaction of outcome of conflict Overall, how satisfied were you with the outcome? Overall, how well were your expectation achieved? Identification Do you speak favorably to other persons about your company? Do you defend your company if someone criticizes it? Do you recommend others to join your company? Is the ideal or value of your company also important for you? Do you tell others proudly that you are a member of the company? Do you work hard if you are given a task or if you are posted anywhere? Do you work more diligently than others in your company? ranging from 19 years to 44 years. They were from various industries: manufacturing (49.3%), service (26.6%), wholesale trade (16.9%), mass media (4.5%), and financial services (1.9%). Organizational conflict means interpersonal conflict with co-workers or supervisors, or intergroup conflict between different sections. In this study, we asked each participant to recall the most memorable recent interpersonal conflict with his or her supervisor, which included disagreement regarding the participant s status or job, and to rate how he or she perceived it using the items in Table 1. We presented the participants with three items to measure procedural fairness, asking them to judge how fair they perceived the process of conflict resolution was. In the distributive fairness scale (two items), we asked the participants how fair the outcome of conflict was. In the favorability of outcome scale (two items), we asked the participants how favorable to them the outcome of conflict was. In order to
110 K. Imazai and K. Ohbuchi Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of variables used in this study Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Appropriate treatment 3.75 1.45 (.87) Favorability of outcome 3.55 1.38.44** (.71) Procedural fairness 3.48 1.32.68**.67** (.83) Distributive fairness 3.56 1.29.55**.64**.73** (.65) Job satisfaction 2.70 1.19.50**.43**.54**.45** (.88) Commitment 2.75 1.12.40**.33**.44**.44**.86** (.83) Satisfaction with outcome 3.45 1.45.48**.81**.71**.70**.51**.44** (.86) Identification a.26*.05.19.17.49**.49**.01 (.87) All scores ranged from 1 to 7, except identification, which was a dummy variable. The figures in parentheses are a Cronbach s alphas, alpha for identification was computed based on raw scores. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. measure the satisfaction with outcomes of conflict using the two items, we asked the participants how satisfied they were with the outcomes of conflict. As we attempted to measure changes of attitude in the organization, we asked about job satisfaction and commitment to the organization. In the job satisfaction scale (two items), we asked the participants if they felt more satisfied with the job after the conflict. In the commitment scale (three items), we asked the participants if they felt more attachment to the organization after the conflict. In the supervisor s treatment scale (seven items), we asked the participants if the supervisors treated them sincerely or if they solved the conflict appropriately. In the identification scale (seven items), we asked the participants how strongly they identified with the organizations. We asked the participants to rate these items on a 7-point scale ranging from Not at all (1) to Definitely (7). Results Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, correlations, and alphas of the scales used in this study. The scales were reliable because items for them have high correlation. Therefore, we made the scale scores by averaging the items for each scale. According to the identification scores, we divided the participants equally into three groups (high, medium and low): the high identification group consisted of 52 participants having 3.5 or higher scores, the medium identification group consisted of 51 participants having points from 2.7 to 3.5 and the low identification group consisted of 51 participants having 2.7 or lower scores. In the test of Hypotheses 4 and 5 regarding the moderating effects of identification, we used only the high and low identification groups. In order to examine Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3, we conducted a series of stepwise regression analyzes in which job satisfaction, perceived commitment, and satisfaction with outcome categories were dependent variables, and perceived procedural fairness, perceived distributive fairness, and favorability of outcome categories were independent variables. Betas in Table 3 indicate that perceived procedural fairness significantly increased job satisfaction, commitment and satisfaction with outcomes; that perceived distributive fairness significantly increased commitment; and that favorability of outcomes significantly increased satisfaction with outcomes. In order to examine Hypotheses 4 and 5, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis. In this analysis, we used a dummy variable of identification (high identification = 1 and low identification = 0). First, the appropriate treatment by supervisors, the favorability of outcome, and identification were entered as independent variables into a regression equation to predict the perceived procedural fairness; second, the interactions of treatment identification and
Conflict resolution and procedural fairness 111 Table 3. Regression of positive commitment and satisfaction of conflict by fairness and outcome Positive organizational attitudes Job satisfaction Commitment Satisfaction with outcome Procedural justice.54**.25**.18* Distributive justice.26**.21** Favorability of outcome.56** Adjusted R 2.29**.21**.72** *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. Table 4. Regression of procedural fairness by treatment, outcome and identification favorability identification were added. The results shown in Table 4 indicate that appropriate treatment by supervisors and favorability of outcome independently increased perception of procedural fairness, but neither of their interactions with identification was significant because they did not produce any significant increase of R 2. Discussion Procedural fairness Step 1 Step 2 Appropriate treatment.47** (.49).42** (.44) Favorability of outcome.46** (.44).52** (.49) Identification.04 (.12).11 (.30) Adjusted R 2.62** Treatment identification.15 (.09) Outcome identification.22 (.14) Adjusted R,2 / R,2.62**/.00 Figures in parentheses are bs. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. The present finding that perceived distributive and procedural fairness increased satisfaction with outcomes of organizational conflicts supported Hypotheses 1 and 2 regarding the short-term effects of fairness in organizational conflict resolution. We can note that fairness is important in organizational conflict resolution for Japanese business employees, just as has been found for business employees in the U.S.A. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the long-term effects of procedural fairness were also found; that is, those who perceived the process of conflict resolution as fair, increased job satisfaction and organizational commitment after the conflict. The fact that the favorability of outcome of conflict did not produce such an effect means that Japanese employees organizational attitudes were not influenced by the personal consequences of conflict resolution, but by the normative aspects of it. In the process of conflict resolution, it is supposed that the employees appraise whether or not these organizational functions are working. Unlike specific outcomes of conflict, the appraisal of procedures may activate employees trust in their organizations. These findings are consistent with the social bond theory of fairness (Ohbuchi & Imazai, 1998), in which people s experience of fairness strengthens a bond between them and their groups. The present results supported the relational hypothesis (Hypothesis 4), but not Hypothesis 5 regarding the moderating effect of group identification. Rather, it was indicated that appropriate treatment by supervisors increased the perception of procedural fairness in both the high and low identification groups. A possible interpretation is a ceiling effect. Japanese business employees are generally known to strongly identify with their organizations (e.g., Tao, 1997). If the participants of the present
112 K. Imazai and K. Ohbuchi study were generally in the high level of identification, it is natural to see the effects of treatment in both the high and the low identification groups. However, their identification was not very high (the grand mean was 3.17, SD = 1.12, and the means of the high and low identification groups were 4.40 and 1.95). Thus, the ceiling effect interpretation does not seem valid. The second interpretation is cultural. Japanese employees are collectivistic, and they are concerned with groups and group authority (Triandis, 1989). Thus, the participants of the present study might have been sensitive and therefore generally affected by the treatment of supervisors in the conflict resolution. Based on the present results, we were able to see several implications for appropriate conflict management in organizations. The first one regards supervisors coping with conflicts. They should not neglect employees claims. Instead, supervisors should provide opportunities for discussion with employees, collect unbiased information, and explain to employees the reasons and processes of their decision. These would enhance employees perception of procedural fairness in conflict management. In Japanese companies, the management of conflict between supervisors and employees has traditionally been conducted in private. However, supervisors should handle conflicts by appropriate procedures even in the office. The second implication is that organizations should build up a system of conflict management. Since supervisors have their own roles and personal interests, it is sometimes difficult for them to be neutral in conflict situations. Because of this, organizations should have a complaints section that provides mediation between supervisors and employees. References Folger, R., & Konovski, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115 130. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399 432. Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem: Is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7, 40 45. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum. Morishima, M. (1997). Atarashii koyokankei to katei no koheisei [New employment relationship and procedural fairness]. Soshikikagaku, 31, 12 19. Ohbuchi, K., & Imazai, K. (1998). Perception of fairness, commitment and appreciation of the Japanese government. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 70, 310 318. (In Japanese with English abstract). Ohbuchi, K., Imazai, K., Sugawara, I., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, A. (1997). Goals and tactics in withinand between-cultural conflicts. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 56, 1 13. Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. (1993). Comparing three processes underlying judgements of procedural justice: A field study of mediation and arbitration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1167 1177. Tao, M. (1997). Kaisha-Ningen No Kenkyu [A study of employees identified with their company]. Kyoto, Japan: Kyoto University Press. (In Japanese) Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506 520. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115 191). New York: Academic Press. (Received Dec. 10, 1999; accepted May 13, 2001)