Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Presentationtoulouse V2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Presentationtoulouse V2


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Organizational justice and perceived team and management support: the mediating role of managerial exemplarity Rémi FINKELSTEIN , Matthieu POIROT, Workshop on Research Advances in Organizational Behavior, and Human Resource Management ,IAE, Université de Toulouse, may 2008.
  • 2. Why Exemplarity ?
    • In current times of golden parachutes and massive escape of capital toward tax heavens, the question of managerial exemplarity seems to occupy a major place in business ethics.
  • 3. Introduction
    • From our perspective, exemplarity is not simply located at the level of general abstract moral principles, but it is registered in daily interpersonal exchange between managers and employees.
    • Exemplarity ? Distance between
      • value attitudes and behaviors ?
      • attitudinal expectations addressed to employees and effective behaviours carried out by the managers?
  • 4. What is Exemplarity ?
    • Managerial Exemplarity = conformity ? Role model ?
  • 5. Definition of managerial exemplarity
    • “ Capacity of a person of a higher hierarchical position to perform on a personal basis the requests that they formulate toward employees placed in their charge.”
  • 6. Managerial Exemplarity Scale (MES)
    • A scale was developed to tap this conception of exemplarity composed of 7 items that cover two dimensions: requests relating to the task and requests relating to interpersonal relations.
    • The items are formulated in the following way: « Is your hierachical superior as punctual for appointments or meetings as she/he asks you to be ? » followed by a 5-point scale ranging from « not at all punctual » to « much more punctual »
    • A first study (Martin, 2007) valided its strong psychometric properties :
      • internal consistency of 0,8
      • Factorial analysis confirmed the two intented dimensions
      • Scale predicted work-related stress, negative and positive affect at work, LMX and turnover intention.
  • 7. Organizational justice and Exemplarity
    • The effects of organizational injustice on the various aspects of attitudes and behaviours within organizations have been widely documented in the literature (see the metaanalyses conducted by Colquitt et al., 2001 and Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).
    • Tyler (1992) and Van den Bos (2002) showed that the employees always had no means to judge if they could trust in their manager.
    • Faced with uncertainty, the employees are particularly sensitive to injustice and they use behaviours of their managers as heuristic of judgement.
    • In our study, we consider managerial exemplarity as an heuristic of justice who could mediatize the impact of oranizational justice on LMX and TMX.
  • 8. Organizational Justice, Exemplarity and LMX, TMX
    • Taking into account the strong influence of the three types of organizational justice discussed in the literature, our assumptions predict a partially moderating effect of exemplarity on the relationship between justice perceptions and LMX and TMX.
  • 9. Mediating rol of Exemplarity Organizational Justice LMX TMX Managerial Exemplarity
  • 10. Hypotheses
    • H1: There is a positive significant link between the three dimensions of organizational justice and LMX.
    • H1a : There is a positive significant link between the three dimensions of organizational justice and TMX.
    • H2: There is a positive significant link between exemplarity and LMX.
    • H2a: There is a positive significant link between exemplarity and TMX.
    • H3: Exemplarity mediates the effect of the three types of justice on LMX
    • H3a : Exemplarity mediates the effect of the three types of justice on LMX
    • H4: Exemplarity mediates the negative effect of hierarchical status on LMX, in a way that this effect is significantly decreased by exemplarity.
  • 11. Participants
    • 1023 employees and managers from the same banking firm in Upper Normandy, France.
    • After removing incomplete protocols from the data base, data analysis was carried out on 993 questionnaires:
      • 300 are managers
      • 693 employees,
      • 500 women
      • 493 men
      • Average age was 41.77 (SD=11.71)
  • 12. Internal consistency coefficients for all scales .77 TMX .88 LMX .89 Interactional justice .88 Procedural justice .96 Distributive justice .87 Exemplarity Cronbach α
  • 13. Means, Standard deviations and correlations between 7 variables tested. Note: N = 993, p <.05 0.46* 0.24* 0.31* 0.21* 0.29* 1.93 11.94 TMX (6) 0.46* 0.50* 0.42* 0.61* 2.68 10.99 LMX (5) 0.58* 0.53* 0.46* 3.34 16.51 Interactional justice(4) 0.70* 0.46* 5.60 17.99 Procedural justice (3) 0.34* 4 12.94 Distributive justice (2) 5.46 21.58 Exemplarity (1) 5 4 3 2 1 SD M
  • 14. Mediation analysis Exemplarity partially accounts for the effect of interactional justice on LMX (Z =15.116; p<.0001). Interactional justice LMX Exemplarity .23 .46 .61
  • 15. Exemplarity partially accounts for the effect of interactional justice on LMX (Z=10.533; p<.0001). Mediation analysis Distributive justice LMX Exemplarity .24 .33 .61
  • 16. Mediation analysis N.S Procedual justice LMX Exemplarity .28 .46 .61
  • 17. Exemplarity partially accounts for the effect of interactional justice on TMX (Z=8.823; p<.0001). Mediation analysis Interactional justice TMX Exemplarity .13 .45 .29
  • 18. Exemplarity partially accounts for the effect of distributive justice on TMX (Z =7.474; p<.0001). Mediation analysis Distributive justice TMX Exemplarity .13 .33 .29
  • 19. Mediation analysis N.S Procedural justice TMX Exemplarity .22 .46 .29
  • 20. H4 (ANOVA)
    • effect of HS on LMX, F (1,982)=6.324; p <.01.
      • Employees have a more negative perception of the quality of exchange with managers (LMX M=10.85) than do managers (M=11.32).
      • Employees also have a clearly more negative perception of the exemplarity of the managers (M=21.06) than do managers (M=22.73), F (1,982)=20.264; p < .0001.
    • no significant effect of HS was observed on the evaluation of team-member exchanges (TMX).
    • Finally HS had a significant effect on
      • distributive justice, F (1,982)=25.789; p <.0001 (Mman=13.91 vs. Memp=12.52)
      • procedural justice, F (1,982)=35.469; p <.0001 (Mman =19.57 vs. Memp=17.32)
      • interactional justice, F (1,182)=19.426; p <.0001 (Mman =17.21 vs. Memp=16.20).
  • 21. Mediation analysis Hierarchical Status TMX Exemplarity .007 -.14 .61
  • 22. Discussion and conclusion
    • Exemplarity plays the expected mediating role between perceptions of justice (except for procedural justice), and perceptions of managers’ support as measured by the evaluation of leader-member exchange (LMX) and co-workers as measured by the team-member exchange score (TMX).
    • results show that exemplarity contributes to decrease the negative effects of hierarchical status on LMX to the point of extinguishing it.
  • 23. Futur research on Managerial Exemplarity Transformational Leadership Self-efficacy at work Managerial Exemplarity
  • 24. Thank you Questions ?