The influence of successorship through intrinsic motivation on work effort as moderated by distributive justice
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business MSc Human Resource Management
4 June 2016
Iris Jager Cortinghpoort 1 9716 GX Groningen
06-27174484
Email: I.G.M.Jager@student.rug.nl Student number: S2812800
Supervisor:
Prof. dr. F. A. Rink Second supervisor:
dr. L. B. Mulder
Word count: 11.058
Acknowledgement: I would like to express my gratitude to Floor Rink for her assistance and feedback on this thesis.
Abstract
In the present research I examined the effects of successorship information on the intrinsic motivation and subsequent work effort of employees. Distributive justice was introduced to moderate the influence on intrinsic motivation and work effort in regard to the non- successors. An online experiment (N = 215) revealed that successorship information has a negative influence on the intrinsic motivation and work effort levels of the non-successors compared to the chosen successors. Analysis revealed that perceived distributive justice only moderated the influence on intrinsic motivation. Supplementary analyses showed that distributive justice increased the procedural- and interactional justice perceptions of the non- successors. In sum, these findings reveal that successorship information has a negative influence on those who are not seen as leadership potentials. However, if they perceive organizational distributive justice, these negative consequences can be buffered and their organizational justice perceptions will be more positive.
Keywords: successorship, intrinsic motivation, work effort, distributive justice, justice.
The influence of successorship through intrinsic motivation on work effort as moderated by distributive justice
In today’s business environment leadership is one of the most discussed and elaborated management priorities. Leadership provides the guidance and direction needed to acquire a long-term vision that enables firms to survive in a competing business environment (Björkman, Ehrnrooth, Mäkelä, Smale, & Sumelius, 2013). To this note leadership and management development programmes that carefully plan successorship are seen as a vital part of securing the future of an organization. Successorship is a strategic HR process that identifies potential leaders and provides them with guidance and training in order to become future leaders within the organization (Heneman III, Judge, & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2015). In 2014, for example, Shell planned successorship for 4.2% of the entire workforce. These chosen successors received training and direction to become future leaders within Shell (Shell, 2015). Strange enough, nothing was mentioned about how this differential treatment influenced the majority, the remaining 95.8% of the workforce, who were not selected for such training.
In science too, there is abundant research about the effects of successorship planning on top level management and organizational performance (see Garman & Glawe, 2004; Shen
& Cannella, 2002), but this work does not elaborate on the effects successorship planning may have on the non-chosen employees (Malik & Sigh, 2014). However, there is little knowledge on the intra-personal effects successorship information may have on chosen and non-chosen employees, or how succession planning makes followers feel. This is important to investigate, because intra-personal responses tend to predict the motivation of employees towards task achievements (Vignoles, Regalia, Manzi, Golledge, & Scabini, 2006). For this reason this study examines the effects that successorship information may have on the
intrinsic motivation of both chosen and non-chosen employees, and consequently, on their willingness to make an effort for their work.
Social exchange theory explains that employees tend to respond in positive ways towards organizations when investments in them are made (Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2009). So it can be predicted that when organizations offer successorship opportunities, employees will become higher intrinsically motivated to make an effort for their work (Porter & Lawler, 1968; Gagné & Deci, 2005). This is important because work effort is a critical in-role behaviour to the success of an organization (Kacmar, Carlson, & Harris, 2013), as it is linked to task performance (Buch, Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2014), and ensures persistence to meet the requirements of the tasks at hand (Buch et al., 2014). However, different theoretical perspectives elaborate on the way non-successors may react. On the one hand, economic theory suggests that when employees are competing and their talents seem exceedingly unequal, the less talented employees may become demotivated and reduce their efforts (Brown, 2011). On the other hand, supporters of internal competition suggest that competition between employees fuels their efforts (Brown, 2011). Due to this contradiction I propose that perceptions of organizational distributive justice can explain when non-successors feel intrinsically motivated and have a high degree of work effort or vice versa.
Organizational distributive justice refers to the fairness perceptions of employees that rewards are consistent with contributions and it is defined as “rules that reflect appropriateness in decision outcomes and include equity, equality and need” (Colquitt &
Zipay, 2015, p. 76). The research of Day (2011) reveals that employees are more likely to respond positively on differential treatment when there is a clear justification provided. From this, I infer that if employees perceive that the allocation of goods is distributed equally by the employer based on commonly accepted standards, this may increase employee motivation and consequently increase their amount of work effort.
In conclusion, I propose that, generally speaking, information about succession planning is positively related to the intrinsic motivation of successors, which in turn will influence the amount of effort they make for their work. However, how such information will affect the intrinsic motivation and work effort of non-successors should depend on perceived distributive justice; when the selection outcomes are fair and well explained, non-successors may not be affected as negatively by it then when these outcomes do not seem fair or are not well-explained.
In investigating these propositions, this paper makes a number of important contributions. First, given that succession planning involves the “singling out of the chosen few at the expense of many” (Steffens, Rink, Stoker & Nederveen-Pietersen, 2015), it is important to investigate under which circumstances those employees who are not chosen as successors remain motivated to work for their organization. By examining whether the influence of talent management programs on employees’ motivation and subsequent work effort depends on perceptions of distributive justice, my research informs organizations how to implement, and communicate about, such programs to those employees who are not chosen.
Second, this research contributes to the underdeveloped understanding of the intra- personal effects that successorship planning has on successors and specifically on non- successors (Gelens, Dries, Hofmans & Pepermans, 2013; Malik & Sigh, 2014; Guest, 2011).
As described by these scholars, more knowledge is needed about how talent management programs influence motivation profiles and additionally employee performance. The final contribution relates to understanding the influence of successorship planning on the relationship between successors and non-successors. Chosen successors can only thrive with the crucial support of the non-successors (Malik & Sigh, 2014). Malik and Sigh (2014) describe that non-successors are the best supporting actors within the organization and the
organizations long term performance is dependent upon the contribution of these supporting actors. However, their contribution is often disregarded by the organization and consequently their performance can suffer, which has consequences for the performance of the successors and subsequently on organizational performance (Huselid, Beatty, & Becker, 2005; Malik &
Sigh, 2014). Therefore it is important for organizations to understand when motivation and effort levels of non-successors decrease, so that they can prevent this from occurring in the future. For an overview of my model, see Figure 1.
Theory
The Effect of Succession Planning on Intrinsic Motivation
A human capital perspective implies that high potentials are high on skill and value, and “they show potential to become more than they currently are” (Silzer & Church, 2009, p.
4). ‘Talents’ are the employees that rank at the top terms of performance and competencies, and are therefore considered leaders in the present or nearby future (Björkman et al., 2013).
Literature on this topic indicates that there are two reasons why organizations engage in succession planning. First, research highlights that it is important to get “the right person in the right job at the right time” (Cappelli & Keller, 2014, p. 306). Second, however, scholars in strategic HRM argue that succession planning is needed because it is important to invest scarce resources in those individuals where returns will be the highest (Felin & Hesterly, 2007). However, identifying top talent in an organization generally results in an exclusive focus on, and treatment of, only 20% of the best performing employees. How the remaining 80% of the employees respond to such programs is unknown, even though they represent the majority of the workforce (Gelens et al., 2013; Malik & Singh, 2014).
So far there is little empirical research on how employees respond to succession information. Yet the studies that have been conducted seem to suggest that providing such information may make chosen successors more arrogant (Call, Nyberg & Thatcher, 2015), but
also more motivated to work for the organization (Malik & Sigh, 2014; Becker, Huselid, Pickus & Spratt, 1997). This is the case because chosen successors feel valued by the organization (Björkman et al., 2013) and feel that the organization is accommodating their intellectual and psychological needs (Mcclean & Collins, 2011). Chosen successors may feel that they are identified as ‘stars’ (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). This feeling will accumulate their intrinsic motivation to become more visible in the organization and can exceed their performance (Call et al., 2015). That is, they will be more willing to “carry out an activity for its own sake, so as to experience the satisfaction and pleasure inherent in the activity” (Gagné & Deci, 2005, p. 345). Indeed, this notion is in line with social exchange theory which states that when the needs of employees are satisfied, they will be more intrinsically motivated and therefore behave in ways that benefit the firm (Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2009). My first hypothesis is therefore;
Hypothesis 1: Being seen as a potential successor is positively related to intrinsic motivation.
How non-successors respond, however, remains unclear. Current literature highlights that there are initially two responses possible. On the one hand, some findings suggest that the non-successors may remain intrinsically motivated to make an effort for their work, despite their position. Recent studies revealed, for example, that non-successors with the desire to become leaders have positive attributions concerning succession planning programs.
Accordingly, these non-successors still set challenging goals and have high performance expectations as they will try to achieve high levels of performance to be considered as a successor in the future (Schüler, Sheldon, & Fröhlich, 2010; Matsui, Okada, & Kakuyama, 1982). Moreover, relative deprivation theory proposes that when non-successors feel relatively deprived in relation to successors, they will raise their motivation and effort levels to minimize the gap between themselves and the chosen successors (Lindquist, 2010). So,
based on Lockwood and Kunda (1997), it can be predicted that non-successors remain intrinsically motivated as long as they perceive that attaining the successor stage is possible in the future. In other words, to the extent that non-successors perceive that hard work will pay off, their motivation levels will increase or remain the same regardless of having received disappointing information about their career prospects within the organization.
On the other hand, however, literature indicates that non-successors may also experience a drop in their intrinsic motivation after receiving successor information. The expectancy theory of motivation (Vroom, 1964) argues that non-successors will not exert high levels of motivation when there is little expectation of success and reward. Subsequently, when comparing the performance levels of the non-successors with successors, the first should become demotivated as they believe equal performance levels are unattainable.
Kacmar, Zivnuska and White (2007) describe the decrease in intrinsic motivation in terms of social inclusion. As they explain that individuals who do not belong to the ‘best performers’
will be demotivated once they feel they will never be included in this group, not now and not in the future. Additionally, as found by Björkman et al. (2013), non-successors may develop negative feelings towards the organization and become demotivated just for the reason of not being chosen. So, not being chosen as a successor can lead to remaining intrinsically motivated under some circumstances and to decreases in intrinsic motivation under others.
Given these inconsistencies concerning the reactions of non-successors in the literature, it can be assumed that their reactions depend on the context in which they operate.
One key context factor is perceived distributive justice since perceptions of justice affect intra-personal feelings (Zapata-Phelan, Colquitt, Scott, & Livingston, 2009). Distributive justice refers to “how fair the employee perceives the actual decision to be” (Heneman III et al., 2015, p. 283). Succession information is in itself an outcome of a decision made by higher management. So, distributive justice can refer to fairness of the actual decision of higher
management to see some employees as successors and not others. According to Colquitt and Zipay (2015), the distributive justice attached to this outcome can shape the emotions and behaviours of employees.
The Moderated Influence of Perceived Distributive Justice
Distributive justice is defined as “rules that reflect appropriateness in decision outcomes and include equity, equality and need” (Colquitt & Zipay, 2015, p. 76). Perceived distributive justice concerns personal evaluations of resource allocations (Gelens et al., 2013).
This shapes the beliefs of employees whether differential treatment between employees is fair within an organization. Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) argue that these beliefs play a large role in employee cognitive, affective, and behavioural reactions to injustice. On that account, when an outcome is perceived as unfair it should affect the persons motivation and as a result his or her behaviour (e.g. work effort). Therefore I expect that distributive justice will influence the relationship between succession information, intrinsic motivation and work effort.
Research of Day (2011) confirms that employees are more likely to respond positively to differential treatment when there is a clear and fair justification for this. Moreover, it has been found that in organizations that are distributively just employees respond with positive attitudes and behaviours (Gelens et al., 2013). Accordingly, when non-successors believe that their contributions are in balance with their outcomes they perceive distributive justice and perceive the decision as fair, even though they are not chosen. For example, Day (2011) argues that in situations where successors obtain more because they produced more, non- successors perceive distributive justice and can therefore remain motivated to perform well.
These non-successors then come to realise that hard work pays off because the organization recognizes excellent performance. In addition, non-successors may feel that obtaining a
successor stage is possible in the future and as a result remain intrinsically motivated (Cohen- Charash & Spector, 2001).
In contrast, when employees perceive distributive injustice, they could modify their input of work to restore their sense of justice. Research has shown, for example, that employees in these cases attempt to hurt the organization with withdrawal or counterproductive work behaviours, “to make their outcome/input ratio less negative from their perspectives” (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001, p. 287). In addition Dulebohn, Conlon, Sarinopoulos, Davison and McNamara (2009) provided evidence with neuroimaging that distributive injustice triggers large negative emotional responses in regard to the leader and the organization. Accordingly, Cohen-Charash and Mueller (2007) suggest that perceptions of injustice may cause non-successors to feel that they are not valued as an organizational member in comparison with chosen successors, causing them to become resentful and inclined to show signs of retaliation (Day, 2011). As a result, they may experience decreases in motivation and lowering efforts to collaborate with successors (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Lindquist, 2010). That is, they realize that their hard work will not generate positive outcomes. Accordingly, I hypothesize that distributive justice weakens the relationship between successor information and intrinsic motivation (H2).
Hypothesis 2: the degree to which information about being a potential successor is positively related to intrinsic motivation is moderated by perceptions of distributive justice.
Such that this relationship is weaker when distributive justice is perceived.
As said, employee motivation generally influences the way in which an employee allocates effort to tasks (Yeo & Neal, 2004). Katerberg and Blau (1983) reason that highly intrinsic motivated employees deliver higher levels of work effort because they derive more
significance and satisfaction from their work (Deci & Ryan, 2000). My final hypothesis is therefore;
Hypothesis 3: the moderating role of distributive justice in the relationship between successorship information and work effort is explained by intrinsic motivation.
Method
Design and Participants
To test the hypotheses, I used a 3 x 2 experimental scenario design with a diverse sample of people with work experience. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six experimental conditions (potential as a leadership successor: high vs. low vs. control, and organizational distributive justice: high vs. low).
Three-hundred-and-forty-nine respondents with work experience participated in the online experimental design for a small compensation after being recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Forty participants failed to complete two attention checks (e.g., “This is a control question—please select ‘2’ ”) and two participants failed to complete the entire survey. Moreover, ninety-two respondents failed to respond correctly to the two manipulation checks corresponding with the scenario that was provided to them, see below. After removing these respondents, the final sample consisted of 215 participants. The number of participants per condition ranged from 21 – 54, which is still in line with the minimal requirements for sample size (Bartlett II, Kotrlik, & Higgins, 2001).
From the participants entered into the analyses 112 were female (52%), 101 were male (47%), and 2 were not specified (1%). Their age ranged from 20 to 70 years (M = 36.84, SD = 11.81; 2 not specified) and their work experience ranged from one to 47 years (M = 15.18; SD
= 11.35; 3 not specified). They worked in a wide array of industry sectors, but the vast
majority were white-collar industry workers and pink-collar workers (service-orientated work). Around a third of participants (32.1%, n = 67; 2 not specified) indicated that they held a management position. Participants were highly educated with 132 participants (61%; 2 not specified) having completed a university degree. The majority of the respondents (90%, n = 195; 2 not specified) experienced working in a hierarchical structure and around half of the respondents encountered a similar situation as provided to them in the scenario (43.3%, n = 93; 2 not specified). Two-hundred-and-four participants indicated that the scenario described, was believable to them (94.9%, n = 204).
Procedure
Participants were asked to visualize themselves into one of the scenarios where they had to imagine that they had been working in a job and that the leader just accepted a higher position at a different department and therefore would leave his position. Afterwards, participants were asked to reflect on their personal feelings and gut instinct in response to the scenario provided to them.
In all six conditions participants were provided with (a) information about tenure (they all worked in the job for five years), (b) general information about the change in leadership (making clear it was an open recruitment procedure), and (c) that their recent performance evaluation has been very good (to rule out any effects due to differences in positivity in feedback about current work). Specifically, in all six conditions participants were provided with the following information:
“Imagine that you had been working in a job that you have been enjoying for several years. You work alongside a number of colleagues in your team who are in similar positions and all of you work approximately 5 years for the organization. Your recent performance evaluation has been very good, so on the whole you are doing well in your job. Now, you learn that your team leader has just accepted a higher position at
a different department within your organization. Your leader will leave the current position in a few months’ time. Your team leader announces the change in leadership formally in a team meeting. The team leader says that there will be an open recruitment procedure, meaning that anybody from within and outside the organization can apply for the position. At the same time, the team is informed that higher management has already two qualified internal candidates who are part of the organization’s high potential stream in mind. As both candidates are seen as highly suitable leaders, your team leader endorses their candidacy.”
Distributive justice manipulation. In addition to the above mentioned, participants received information about organizational distributive justice. Specifically, in the high distributive justice conditions the participants gained the following information:
“On average, you feel that you work in a transparent organization that treats her employees fairly. In most cases, people’s efforts pay off, and the most qualified and hardworking employees are promoted to leadership positions.”
In contrast, in the low distributive justice conditions, it then said:
“On average, you feel that you work in a closed organization that treats her employees unfairly. In most cases, people’s efforts do not pay off, and it happens frequently that not the most qualified and hardworking employees are promoted to leadership positions.”
At the final end of the study I checked this manipulation with the following question;
“It is clear from the above mentioned situation that (a) I perceive the organization as distributively just, and (b) I perceive the organization as distributively unjust”.
Successor manipulation. Participants finally received potential successor information. In the high successorship conditions it was said:
“The day before, your team leader had already informed you that you are regarded as a potential successor for the role. You learned that higher management and your leader see you as a high potential within the organization that could be the future leader of the team. The leader also said: “I strongly encourage you to apply for this role.” So you realize that you are one of the two candidates for the position.”
In contrast, in the low potential successorship conditions, it then said:
“The day before, your team leader had already informed you that you are not regarded as a potential successor for the role. You learned that higher management and your leader do not see you as a high potential within the organization that could be the future leader of the team. The leader also said “You are doing a great job and I am very happy with you. It’s just that not everyone can be a high potential”. So you realize that you are not one of the two candidates.”
Finally, in the control conditions no information was provided about being a potential successor. In these conditions it then said:
“Your leader did not inform you whether you are regarded as a potential successor for the role. So you do not know whether higher management and your leader see you as a high potential within the organization that could be the future leader of the team. It is thus unclear to you whether you have been chosen as one of the two candidates for the position.”
This manipulation was checked with the following question; “It is clear from my work situation that my team leader (a) endorses me as a potential leader of the team, (b) does not endorse me as a potential leader of the team, and (c) has given me no information about being a potential leader of the team”.
Measures
On a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) participants responded to a series of questions that captured my psychological study concepts.
All full scales are presented in appendix A.
Intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation was measured by means of the six-item scale developed by Warr, Cook, and Wall (1979), with five items adapted to fit the scenario.
This scale was chosen because it represents the definition of intrinsic motivation in this paper.
An example item was “I feel a sense of personal satisfaction about my position”. The internal consistency for this scale was acceptable (Cronbachs α = .76).
Work effort. Work effort was measured using the five items based on prior measures, and further developed by Kuvaas and Dysvik (2009). An example item was “I often expend extra effort in carrying out my job”. The internal consistency of work effort was high (Cronbachs α = .97).
Control variables. Control variables were age and gender. Age was measured in years and was used as a control variable because it could influence the amount of intrinsic motivation and work effort an employee possessed. I controlled for gender in the light of recent research suggesting a male preference in organizational exchange relationships (Kuvaas, Buch, Dysvik, & Haerem, 2012). This preference is linked to being seen as a potential successor.
Supplementary Measures
In this study I offer additional attention to justice theory. As justice theory states that in addition to distributive justice, interactional justice and procedural justice affect employees’ attitudes as well, I also investigate the influence of successorship information and distributive justice on people’s perceptions of these types of justice. Interactional justice covers the fairness of the leader and organization in regard to the employee. The meta-
analysis of Colquitt, Scott, Rodell, Long, and Zapata (2013) revealed that perceptions of interactional injustice generate negative attitudes towards the organization and the leader due to the reciprocation behaviours of employees (Organ, 1990). Even though the influence of distributive justice on interactional justice is barely investigated, I propose that distributive justice should increase the feeling of interactional justice as it covers decision fairness of the leader and organization.
Procedural justice refers to “the fairness of the process by which outcomes are determined” (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001, p. 280). Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) reveal that when procedural injustice is perceived this results in counterproductive work behaviours, lowered job performance, and higher turnover intentions. Gelens et al. (2013) describe that not being chosen as a successor may also result in perceiving the procedure as unfair, on the basis of not being chosen. It is therefore interesting to investigate if perceived outcome fairness will impact this procedural injustice perception. This contributes to the understanding of how distributive justice can buffer negative attitudes in regard to successorship information. I propose that perceived distributive justice should increase procedural justice for the non-successors, as outcomes may justify means (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Interactional justice (organizational and leader fairness), and procedural justice were measured by the following measures, all full scales are presented in appendix A.
Fairness of the leader. Fairness of the leader was measured on a three item scale developed by Ambrose and Schminke (in press), all items were adapted to fit the scenario. An example item was “Overall, I am treated fairly by this leader”. The internal consistency for this scale was high (Cronbachs α = .96).
Fairness of the organization. Fairness of the organization was measured on a three item scale developed by Ambrose and Schminke (in press), the last item was adapted to fit the
scenario. An example item was “In general, I can count on the organization to be fair”. The internal consistency for this scale was high (Cronbachs α = .96).
Procedural justice. Procedural justice was measured on a five item scale developed by Colquitt (2001), all items were adapted to fit the scenario. An example item was “I was judged in an objective and fair manner by the leader and higher management”. The internal consistency of procedural justice was high (Cronbachs α = .97).
Afterwards, participants were asked to provide demographic data, were reimbursed, and debriefed.
Data Analyses
For the data analysis of the experimental scenario design I ran a univariate 2 X 3 ANOVA. With predictors being the potential successorship information and distributive justice information and the dependent variables being intrinsic motivation and work effort. In addition, a mediation regression with the modification of Hayes (process) was conducted.
For supplementary analyses, I ran a series of various univariate 2 X 3 ANOVA’s with predictors being successorship and distributive justice information and the dependent variables being procedural justice, fairness of the organization, and fairness of the leader.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations between variables are presented in table 1. As shown in the table, the correlation between successorship and distributive justice was not significant. However, intrinsic motivation and work effort did significantly correlate with successorship and distributive justice. In addition, work effort and intrinsic motivation were positively and significantly correlated.
Work effort. The results of the ANOVA, with controlling for age and gender, on work effort revealed a significant main effect of successorship, F(2, 205) = 16.33, p < .001,
and distributive justice, F(1, 205) = 20.70, p < .001. There was, however, no interaction effect of distributive justice and successorship information on participants work effort, F(2, 205) = .92, p = .39. Decomposition of the successorship means by post hoc Turkey test revealed that those in the successor condition showed significantly more work effort than the non- successors (respectively M = 5.67 and M = 4.31) (MD = 1.36, SE = -.03, 95%CIs [.86, 1.85], p < .001), however, the successor condition and the control did not differ significantly (p = .19). In addition, the non-successors showed lower work effort than those in the control condition (M = 5.37) (MD = -1.05, SE = .02, 95%CIs [-1.55, -.55], p < .001). Moreover, decomposition of the distributive justice means by post hoc Turkey test revealed that those in the justice condition showed more work effort than those in the injustice condition (respectively M = 5.54 and M = 4.69) (MD = .85, SE = .003, 95%CIs [.44, 1.23], p < .001).
Intrinsic motivation. The results of the ANOVA on intrinsic motivation, while controlling for age and gender, revealed significant main effects for successorship F(2, 205) = 38.84, p < .001, and distributive justice F(1, 205) = 28.93, p < .001. Moreover, there was a marginal significant interaction effect, F(2, 205) = 3.02, p = .051. When participants learned that they were seen as successors, they reported high levels of intrinsic motivation regardless of whether the organization was distributively just or not (respectively M = 5.51, SD = .74 and M = 5.19, SD = .88; MD = .32, SD = -.14), supporting H1. The same was true for participants who did not receive any succession information (respectively M = 5.32, SD = .80 and M = 4.72, SD = .94; MD = .60, SD = -.14). However, when participants learned that they were not seen as successors, organizational distributive justice affected their intrinsic motivation, such that those participants demonstrated a significantly greater drop in intrinsic motivation when the organization was unjust (M = 3.64, SD = 0.98) than when the organization was just (M = 4.57, SD = .74; MD = -.93, SD = .24). Therefore, H2 is supported.
Mediation. The analyses showed that the interaction between successor information and distributive justice had no influence on the level of work effort, giving no support for H3.
Therefore I conducted a simple mediation analysis between successorship potential, intrinsic motivation and work effort. To assess if information about being seen as a potential successor and work effort is positively indirectly related through intrinsic motivation, a SPSS PROCESS bootstrapping macro for simple mediation (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) was performed, while controlling for age and gender. All variables were Z-standardized (Aiken &
West, 1991). This analysis revealed that intrinsic motivation indeed significantly mediated the effect of successorship potential on work effort, b = .22, Boot SE = .04, LL95%CIs= .14, UL95%CI = .32, such that successorship information ensured a higher amount of intrinsic motivation, which led to higher work effort.
Supplementary Analyses
Effect on perceived interactional and procedural justice. Descriptives are presented in table 2, as shown in the table all justice perceptions are highly correlated. Analysis of procedural fairness revealed a significant main effect of successorship information, F(2, 208)
= 35.10, p < .001 and distributive justice, F(1, 208) = 108.70, p < .001. Moreover, there was a significant interaction between successorship information and distributive justice, F(2, 208) = 5.03, p < .01. Participants in all successor conditions who perceived distributive justice regarded the procedures as significantly more fair than respondents who perceived distributive injustice. Respondents in the low successor condition were affected the most by distributive justice levels, such that they had a significant drop in procedural justice perceptions when the organization was unjust in contrast to when the organization was just. See table 3 for all means.
Moreover, analysis of fairness of the leader also revealed a significant main effect of successorship information, F(2, 209) = 37.53, p < .001, distributive justice, F(1, 209) = 134.04, p < .001, and a significant interaction between successorship information and distributive justice, F(2, 209) = 5.87, p < .01. In addition, the analysis of fairness of the organization too revealed a significant main effect of successorship information, F(2, 209) = 24.08, p < .001, distributive justice, F(1, 209) = 186.56, p < .001, and a significant interaction between successorship information and distributive justice, F(2, 209) = 3.52, p < .05. Taking both analyses together, participants in all successor conditions who perceived distributive justice viewed the leader and the organization as significantly more fair than respondents who perceived distributive injustice. Distributive justice had the largest effect on the non- successors, such that, when distributive injustice was perceived this resulted in a significantly greater drop of perceived organizational and leader fairness (interactional justice) than when the organization was distributively just.
Discussion
This study was designed to investigate whether information about successorship potential had an indirect positive influence on work effort through intrinsic motivation, as moderated by distributive justice. It was proposed that especially for the non-successors their reactions depended on perceived organizational distributive justice.
Results show that those who were not chosen as successors were lower intrinsically motivated and showed a lower amount of work effort than those in the successor and control condition (H1). Furthermore, by comparing successorship with the control condition, my results reveal that the negative consequences (lowered intrinsic motivation and work effort) of being a non-successor are stronger than the positive outcomes of being a potential successor.
Distributive justice did not have a moderating effect on work effort (H3), however, findings do reveal that it had a strong moderation effect on the intrinsic motivation of the non-
successors. When distributive justice was perceived, the non-successors remained significantly higher intrinsically motivated than when distributive injustice was perceived (H2). Moreover, findings do reveal that intrinsic motivation mediated the relationship between successorship information and work effort, such that higher intrinsic motivation leads to higher work effort.
Interestingly, supplementary analyses revealed that when distributive justice was perceived respondents accordingly viewed the process, leader and organization as more fair.
In sum, findings indicate that distributive justice effects the overall perception of fairness within the organization in a positive manner and buffers the negative influence on intrinsic motivation for the non-successors.
Implications for Theory
A number of important implications for theory can be described in regard to my findings. First, this study contributes to the underdeveloped understanding of the intra- personal effects that successorship planning has on successors and specifically non-successors (Gelens et al., 2013; Malik & Sigh, 2014; Guest, 2011). Findings demonstrate that being regarded as a successor had more positive effects on the individuals’ intra-personal feelings and consequently their work effort than those who were not regarded as successors. This is of high importance since identifying successors consist of focusing on just a fifth of the entire workforce (Gelens et al., 2013). The current findings thus highlight the importance of understanding the impact succession information has on those denied the advancements to such positions.
Second, intrinsic motivation and work effort are key organizational concerns as they relate to individual and organizational performance (Blau, 1993; Yeo & Neal, 2004). Indeed, increased levels of work effort are important as Brown & Peterson (1994) generally define
work effort as “the force, energy, or activity by which work is accomplished” (p. 71). Work effort is thus a critical in-role behaviour to spend more time and energy on a task than required (Mcclean & Collins, 2011) and as such, strongly affects task performance.
Accordingly, this study complements past research on successorship programs that shed light on how succession information may impact individual and organizational performance (Schulz, Wu, & Chow, 2010; Jalal & Prezas, 2012). Indeed, findings reveal that not being seen as a potential successor effects the intrinsic motivation and work effort levels negatively, which ensures that individual performance is lower and therefore affects the overall performance of the organization in a negative manner.
Third, findings indicate that employees are not only concerned with leadership information but also with the culture within an organization, that is for their intrinsic motivation levels. Indeed, results show that the non-successors make their input/outcome ratio less negative by lowering their intrinsic motivation when distributive injustice is perceived (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Deutsch (1975) describes that distributive justice is an important aspect of culture, by stating that culture is a social system and employees expect that resources will be distributed on past contributions and achievements. Erkutlu (2011) describes that dominant culture norms influence what is perceived as legitimate and that cultural values are reflected in behaviours. Accordingly, my results contribute to the research on talent management by suggesting that the organizational culture and the level of justice matters for the reactions of employees towards successorship decisions.
Finally, this study contributes to the justice literature. Justice literature is not congruent about the influence of distributive justice on procedural justice (Greenberg, 1986;
Colquitt, 2001; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Present research findings contribute to this by showing that distributive justice does influence perceived procedural justice, such that those
who were not seen as potential successors perceived the procedures as significantly more fair when distributive justice was perceived then when distributive injustice was perceived. These results indicate that when only distributive justice is applied there will be more positive attitudes towards the organization, because when outcomes are perceived as fair the procedure will correspondingly be regarded as more fair. So, outcomes do justify means (Skarlicki &
Folger, 1997).
As for interactional justice, this concept has an underdeveloped understanding within the talent literature as some researchers describe its influence on organizational success (see Bies & Moag, 1986; Colquitt and Zipay, 2015) and others do not (see Cropanzano, Prehar, &
Chen, 2002; Masterson, Lewis-Mcclear, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). It is described that when employees receive unfavourable outcomes there will be a lower perception of interactional justice. Colquitt and Zipay (2015) describe that this could be influenced by procedural justice.
However, this was not revealed for distributive justice. Yet, current findings indicate, that those who were not seen as potential successors perceived higher interactional justice when distributive justice was perceived then when distributive injustice was perceived. So, providing evidence for the positive influence of distributive justice on interactional justice and for the increase in positive attitudes of employees.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, a considerable amount of, ninety-two respondents, responded incorrectly to the two manipulation checks even though a reminder was provided. The majority of these respondents answered incorrectly to the justice manipulation, when being assigned in the low successor potential condition. To overcome this limitation the experiment should be repeated while the justice manipulation is described more clearly and reminders are provided above every subject of the questionnaire.
Second, data was derived from Mturk. Even though research on Mturk reveals that (a) participants derived from Mturk are more attentive to instructions (Hauser & Schwarz, 2016), (b) samples tend to produce near equivalent results as experiments conducted in a laboratory (Buhrmester et al., 2011), and (c) Mturk workers tend to be more demographically divers than standard internet- and college samples (Buhrmester et al., 2011), it is not generalizable since it is not a sample from an organization with actual succession policies and it is not a field study (Perdue & Summers, 1986).
Finally, as described procedural justice and distributive justice are correlated within this study. Cohen-Charash & Spector (2001) describe that concerns of justice cover both procedural- and distributive justice, a limitation of this study is not manipulating both justice perceptions together. This could have ensured a higher level of understanding of the justice manipulation, especially for the non-successors.
Future Research Directions
Besides solving the methodological limitations, there are several interesting paths to investigate for future research. First, this research provides some evidence that distributive justice buffers the effect of succession information for the non-successors. Additional analyses revealed an interaction with interactional- and procedural justice, which are too described to influence employees’ cognitive, affective, and behavioural reactions (Cohen- Charash & Spector, 2001). Fairness theory states that negative emotional consequences result from individuals’ unfair perceptions. Research reveals that non-successors may react to succession information with counter productive work behaviours (Call et al., 2015), higher turnover intentions (Heneman III, 2015), and lower commitment (Steffens et al., 2015). I suggest that justice should be further investigated as a buffer for these negative reactions to succession information. Brockner and Wiesenfeld (2005) revealed that when procedures are
fair, distributive justice has a smaller negative effect on employees’ reactions. In addition, Lind and Tyler (1988) describe that when employees perceive interactional justice they are less affected by unfair outcomes. The relationship between interactional- and procedural justice is described by Cohen-Charash & Spector (2001), they reveal that employees are concerned with interactional justice because they want to feel appreciated and valued by the leader and organization. A fair process increases this feeling and they state that this interaction may result in perceiving that a successor stage is possible in the future. Therefore I propose that for future research the interaction between all three justice perceptions should be included as this may have a substantial effect on the reactions of the non-successors.
Specifically, the relationship between successor information and various negative reactions mediated by distributive justice, and moderated by procedural and interactional justice should be investigated.
Second, in this study I presumed that every respondent had a similar need to become a successor. However, as research describes, individuals differ in their need for power, achievement, and/or status and this influences their need to grow to higher positions within the organization (Lisjak, Molden, & Lee, 2012). Being at higher levels in the organization satisfies a cluster of psychological desires related to power (Friesen, Kay, Eibach, &
Galinsky, 2014). When these needs are satisfied, intrinsic motivation increases (Gagné &
Deci, 2005). Studies revealed that individuals with the desire to become leaders, but did not receive the opportunity, may react in more negative manners towards the organization then when this desire is lower or non-existent (Schüler et al., 2010; Matsui et al., 1982). This could have had a significant impact on the current results because the higher drops in intrinsic motivation of the non-successors may result from individuals who had a higher need to become a successor. Accordingly, future research should include the need for power,
achievement, or status as a moderator, to make more accurate conclusions about how successor information influences intrinsic motivation and correspondingly work effort levels.
Third, in this study little attention was given to personal differences between individuals who received succession information. Attribution of responsibility may be an important moderator to understand the impact of succession information on intrinsic motivation. Attribution theorists note that there are two ways to attribute responsibility of particular outcomes, internally vs. externally (Wong & Weiner, 1981). Brockner, Fishman, Goldman, Reb, Spiegel, and Garden (2007) describe that when people attribute responsibility externally, they perceive the authority responsible for their outcomes, often view their outcomes as unfavourable, and they are more likely to react negatively to the decision, authority, and organization. Yet, when individuals attribute responsibility internally, they perceive themselves responsible for their outcomes, view their outcomes as more favourable (Brockner et al., 2007), and feel in control of their situation and therefore will react more positively, even when outcomes are negative to them (Lalwani & Duval, 2000). This could have given more clarification about the motivational losses of the non-successors within this research. Therefore, I recommend investigating attribution of responsibility as it may moderate the relationship between successorship potential and intrinsic motivation. Such that, when individuals attribute responsibility internally and are not chosen as a potential successor, they will respond in a less negative manner to the organization by still remaining to be intrinsically motivated.
Finally, it is interesting to investigate the potential effect successorship information has on team performance, since successors and non-successors work in teams within an organization. As said successors can only thrive with the crucial support of the non-successors (Malik & Sigh, 2014), since non-successors bring unique strengths in times of crisis and they
remain longer in the organization and therefore possess critical organizational knowledge most successors not yet have (Delong & Vijayaraghaven, 2003). Toma and Butera (2009) describe that team members are challenged with a conflicting choice between collective- and self-interest in regard to information sharing and that when employees feel they are in competition or feel undervalued, the degree of information sharing decreases. Call et al.
(2015) state that non-successors may be hesitant to collectively share information with the successors because they feel undervalued and successors are cautious to share information because they feel they are still in competition. Toma and Butera (2009) state that “the strategic sharing, and withholding of information is a widely known phenomenon in organizations” (p. 793). Information sharing is directly linked to team performance; since it is needed to achieve optimal joint outcomes within teams, information sharing should therefore be investigated. I propose that distributive justice may be an important moderator. When distributive justice is perceived, employees will react with more positive attitudes and behaviours in regard to the organization, so successors and non-successors may choose for a more collective interest and will remain to share information (Gelens et al., 2013). Therefore I recommend that the relationship between successorship information and information sharing as moderated by distributive justice should be investigated.
Conclusion and Practical Implications
This research extends to the underdeveloped understanding of how successorship affects the non-successors by providing significant evidence of the consequences for these non-successors. This study reveals that information of not being chosen has a significant negative effect on the intrinsic motivation and work effort levels of these non-successors. In addition, this study reveals that such motivational losses can be buffered by perceived
distributive justice, as well as that it reveals that distributive justice ensures a higher interactional and procedural justice perception for these non-successors.
There are several practical implications following these results. First, to reduce the negative impact succession information has on the non-successors, organizations should be concerned about how employees perceive justice within the organization. To ensure distributive, procedural and interactional justice, the organization should make decisions based on commonly accepted standards and procedures, and treat employees with respect and dignity. That way employees perceive that the most qualified and hardworking employees are regarded as potential successors, which ensures the belief that obtaining a successor stage is still possible in the future (Colquitt & Zipay, 2015; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Day, 2011). This will result in more positive attitudes towards the organization (Folger, 1993;
Gelens et al., 2013).
Second, as successorship policies are focused on just 20% of the employees and the negative consequences of the non-successor outweigh the positive of the successors, organizations might consider adapting their succession programs by trying to include the majority of the workforce’ the non-successors. Given that, O’Reilly and Pfeffer (2000) revealed that organizational success stems from “capturing the value of the entire workforce, not just a few superstars” (p. 52), the inclusive approach is recommended. The inclusive approach argues that every employee has talent and it is the organizations task to offer equal opportunities to all employees to develop their talents (Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, & González- Cruz, 2013). In addition, the findings of distributive justice reinforces this inclusive approach as it guarantees a more egalitarian distribution of resources across all employees, which ensures a more enjoyable, collegial, and motivating work climate (Bothner, Podolny, &
Smith, 2011).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (in press). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Bartlett II, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size for survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43-50.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1994). Effect of newcomer involvement in work-related activities: a longitudinal study of socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 211-223.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., & Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a source of shareholder value: Research and recommendations. Human Resource Management, 36, 39-47.
Bennet, J. B. (1988). Power and influence as distinct personality traits: development and validation of a psychometric measure. Journal of research in personality, 22, 361-394.
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 (43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. (2013). Talent or not?
Employee reactions to talent identification. Human Resource Management, 52(2), 195-214.
Blau, G. (1993). Operationalizing direction and level of effort and testing their relationships to individual job performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Processes, 55, 152-170.
Bothner, M. S., Podolny, J. M., & Smith, E. B. (2011). Organizing contest for status: The Matthew effect vs. the Mark effect. Management Science, 57(3), 439-457.
Brockner, J., Fishman, A. Y., Goldman, B., Reb, J., Spiegel, S., & Garden, C. (2007).
Procedural fairness, outcome favourability, and judgements of an authority’s responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1657-1671.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2005). How, when, and why does outcome favorability interact with procedural fairness? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (525-553). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, J. (2011). Quitters never win: The (adverse) incentive effects of competing with superstars. Journal of Political Economy, 119, 982-1013.
Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1994). The effect of effort on sales performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 58, 70-80.
Buch, R., Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2014). If and when social and economic leader-member exchange relationships predict follower work effort. Leadership & organization development journal, 35(8), 725-739.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.
Call, M. L., Nyberg, A. J., & Thatcher, S. (2015). Stargazing: An integrative conceptual review, theoretical reconciliation, and extension for star employee research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 623-640.
Cappelli, P., & Keller, J. (2014). Talent management: conceptual approaches and practical challenges. The annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 1, 305-331.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. S. (2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of applied psychology, 92(3), 666-680.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta- analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B.A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., & Zapata, C. P. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199-236.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zipay, K. P. (2015). Justice, fairness, and employee reactions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 1-25.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group organization management, 27(3), 324-351.
Day, N. E. (2011). Perceived pay communication, justice and pay satisfaction. Employee Relations, 33, 476-497.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
DeLong, T. J., & Vijayaraghavan, V. (2003). Let’s hear it for B players. Harvard Business Review, 81(6), 96-102.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice. Journal of social issues, 31, 137-149.
Dulebohn, J. H., Conlon, D. E., Sarinopoulos, I., Davison, R. B., and McNamara, G. (2009).
The biological bases of unfairness: Neuroimaging evidence for the distinctiveness of procedural and distributive justice. Organizational behaviour and human decision processes, 110, 140-151.
Erkutlu, H. (2011). The moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviours. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 32(6), 532-554.
Felin, T., & Hesterly, W. S. (2007). The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and new value creation: philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge. Academy of management review, 32(1), 195-218.
Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Friesen, J. P., Kay, A. C., Eibach, R. P., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). Seeking structure in social organization: compensatory control and psychological advantages of Hierarchy.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 106(4), 590-609.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of organizational behavior, 26, 331-362.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T. F. (2013).What is the meaning of
‘talent’ in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), 290-300 Garman, A. N., & Glawe, J. (2004). Succession Planning. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 56, 119-128.
Gelens, J., Dries, N., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2013). The role of perceived organizational justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: a research agenda. Human resource management review, 23, 341-353.
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340-342.
Guest, D. E. (2011). Human resource management and performance: Still searching for some answers. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1), 3-13.
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research methods, 48, 400-407.
Heneman III, H.G., Judge, T.A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., (2015). Staffing Organizations (8th ed.). Mishawaka, NY: Pangloss Industries, Inc.
Huselid, M. A., Beatty, R. W., & Becker, B. E. (2005). ‘A Players’ or ‘A Positions’? Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 110-117.
Jalal, A. M., & Prezas, A. P. (2012). Outsider CEO succession and firm performance. Journal of Economics and Business, 64, 399-426.
Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). On the value of aiming high: The causes and consequences of ambition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 758 -775.
Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D.S., & Harris, K. J. (2013). Interactive effect of leaders’ influence tactics and ethical leadership on work effort and helping behavior. The journal of social psychology, 153(5), 577-597.
Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & White, C. D. (2007). Control and exchange: the impact of work environment on the work effort of low relationship quality employees. The leadership quarterly, 18, 69-84.
Katerberg, R. and Blau, G. J. (1983). An examination of level and direction of effort and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 249-257.
Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2009). Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic motivation and work performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 19, 217- 236.
Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Dysvik, A., & Haerem, T. (2012). Economic and social leader-member exchange relationships and follower performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 756- 765.
Lalwani, N., & Duval, T. S. (2000). The moderating effects of cognitive appraisal processes on self-attribution of responsibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(11), 2233-2245.
Landau, J., & Hammer, T. H. (1986). Clerical employees’ perceptions of intraorganizational career opportunities. Academy of management journal, 29(2), 385-404.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance:
The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of applied psychology, 87(1): 131-142.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York:
Plenum.
Lindquist, G. S. (2010). Tournaments and unfair treatment. The journal of socio-economics, 39, 670-682.
Lisjak, M., Molden, D. C., & Lee, A. Y. (2012). Primed interference: the cognitive and behavioral costs of an incongruity between chronic and primed motivational orientations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(5), 889-909.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstar and me: predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(1), 91-103.
Malik, A. R., & Singh, P. (2014). ‘High potential’ programs: Let's hear it for ‘B’ players.
Human Resource Management Review, 24, 330-346.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis-Mcclear, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, S. M. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.
Matsui, T., Okada, A., & Kakuyama, T. (1982). Influence of achievement need on goal setting, pay and feedback effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 645-648.
Meyer J, P. & Allen, N, J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: SAGE.
Mcclean, E., & Collins, C. J. (2011). High-commitment HR practices, employee effort, and firm performance: Investigating the effects of HR practices across employee groups within professional service firms. Human resource management, 50(3), 341-363.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Pfeffer, J. (2000). “Cisco systems: acquiring and retaining talent in hypercompetitive markets”. Human resource planning, 23(3), 38-52.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in organizational behaviour, 12, 43-72.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press and Richard D. Irwin.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36(4), 717-731.
Purdue, B. C., & Summers, J. O. (1986). Checking the success of manipulations in marketing experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 317-326.
![[Review of: J. Ingleson (2014) Workers, Unions and Politics: Indonesia in the 1920s and 1930s] - 22134379_170_04_s010_text]()