Motivation to cooperate in Organisations: The case of prototypical leadership and procedural fairness

Article English OPEN
De Cremer, David ; van Dijke, Marius ; Brebels, Lieven ; Hoogervorst, Niek (2008)
  • Publisher: Ubiquity Press
  • Journal: Psychologica Belgica (issn: 0033-2879, eissn: 2054-670X)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.5334/pb-48-2-3-157
  • Subject: Psychology | BF1-990

<span>The present paper explores how leader prototypicality and procedural fairness connect in stimulating follower cooperation. We, first of all, argue that leader prototypicality (the extent to which a leader represents the group identity) enhances positive perceptions about the future. It does so by positively influencing perceptions of the leader's procedural fairness (at least among strongly identifying group members). Such perceptions of procedural fairness, in turn, stimulate follower cooperation. Secondly, we argue that leader prototypicality also facilitates the enactment of fair procedures by increasing the effectiveness that a procedurally fair treatment has on follower cooperation. We present an overview of very recent studies that support both arguments and conclude that group based dynamics, which determine the group prototype, have important influences on the effectiveness with which leaders can stimulate cooperation by means of procedural fairness.</span>
  • References (79)
    79 references, page 1 of 8

    Adams, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436.

    Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M., & Bies, R.J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offence as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653-668.

    Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

    Bies, R.J., & Moag, J.F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R.J. Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard, & M.H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in Organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Brebels, L., De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2008). Retaliation as a Response to Procedural Unfairness: A Self-Regulatory Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1511-1525.

    Brockner, J., & Siegel, P. (1996). Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice: The role of trust. In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 390-413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Brockner, J., Tyler, T.R., & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The influence of prior commitment to an institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 241-261.

    Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B.M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcome and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.

    Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B.M. (2003). How, when and why does outcome favorability interact with procedural fairness. In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: Fundamental questions about fairness in the workplace (pp. 525-554). Hillsday, N.Y.: Erlbaum.

    Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B.M., & Martin, C.L. (1995). Decision frame, procedural justice, and survivors' reactions to job layoffs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 59-68.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark