Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How and When Leaders’ Perceptions of Team Politics Influence Justice Rule Adherence: A Moral Self-Regulation Perspective

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Leaders enact justice in a workplace that is often replete with various political dynamics such as goal conflicts, cliques, and differential treatments. Understanding how and when workplace politics influence leaders’ justice rule adherence is theoretically and practically important. In this paper, we conceptualize the workplace as a political arena and adopt moral self-regulation theory to explore how and when leaders’ perceptions of team politics (PTP) impact their justice rule adherence. We hypothesize that leaders’ PTP prompts them to justify subordinates-directed unjust behaviors, which in turn reduces their justice rule adherence. Furthermore, we hypothesize that leaders’ high construal level mitigates the negative effect of PTP on justice rule adherence. We conduct three studies to examine our theoretical model at both the within- and between-person levels. Results from two interval-based experience sampling studies (within-person) and one time-lagged scenario-based experiment (between-person) demonstrate consistent support for our hypotheses. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and managerial implications of our research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although we focus on negative organizational politics in this paper, we acknowledge that prior research also conceives organizational politics in positive terms. Pfeffer (1981), for example, argues that organizational politics and managers’ political skills are important for positive organizational change. See also for positive or functional organizational politics: Buchanan & Badham, 2008; Fedor & Maslyn, 2002; Fedor et al., 2008; Hochwarter, 2017.

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M. L. (2017). It’s fairly political around here: Relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and organizational justice. In G. R. Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research consideration (pp. 133–160). Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). Assessing roadblocks to justice: A model of fair behavior in organizations. In J. J. Martocchio & H. Liao (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 28, pp. 219–263). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai, Y., Han, G. H., & Harms, P. D. (2016). Team conflict mediates the effects of organizational politics on employee performance: A cross-level analysis in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(1), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development: Theory, research and applications (pp. 77–129). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 364–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 142–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beal, D. J. (2015). ESM 2.0: State of the art and future potential of experience sampling methods in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 383–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beal, D. J., Trougakos, J. P., Weiss, H. M., & Dalal, R. S. (2013). Affect spin and the emotion regulation process at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 593–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beal, D. J., & Weiss, H. M. (2003). Methods of ecological momentary assessment in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 440–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria for fairness. In B. H. Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43–55). JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brebels, L., Cremer, D. D., Dijke, M. V., & Hiel, A. V. (2011). Fairness as social responsibility: A moral self-regulation account of procedural justice enactment. British Journal of Management, 22, S47–S58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instrument. In W. Lonner & J. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., Siegel, P. A., Bobocel, D. R., & Liu, Z. (2015). Riding the fifth wave: Organizational justice as dependent variable. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (2008). Power politics and organizational change (2nd). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camps, J., Graso, M., & Brebels, L. (2022). When organizational justice enactment is a zero-sum game: A trade-offs and self-concept maintenance perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 36(1), 30–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C.-H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 779–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M., & Chen, C. C. (2023). The moral dark side of performance pressure: How and when it affects unethical pro-organizational behavior. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(7), 1359–1389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M., Chen, C., & Sheldon, O. J. (2016). Relaxing moral reasoning to win: How organizational identification relates to unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1082–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Hill, E. T., & De Cremer, D. (2023). Forever focused on fairness: 75 years of organizational justice in personnel psychology. Personnel Psychology, 76(2), 413–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., & Conlon, D. E. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Fortin, M., & Kirk, J. F. (2015). How do we know when we are treated fairly? Justice rules and fairness judgments. In M. R. Buckley, A. R. Wheeler, & J. R. B. Halbesleben (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 33, pp. 279–350). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennerlein, T., & Kirkman, B. L. (2022). The hidden dark side of empowering leadership: The moderating role of hindrance stressors in explaining when empowering employees can promote moral disengagement and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(12), 2220–2242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derfler-Rozin, R., Sherf, E. N., & Chen, G. (2021). To be or not to be consistent? The role of friendship and group-targeted perspective in managers’ allocation decisions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(6), 814–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 374–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., Bell, C. M., Fortin, M., Gollwitzer, M., & Melkonian, T. (2021). Uncharted waters of justice enactment—venturing into the social complexity of doing justice in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(6), 699–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., & Aquino, K. (2012). A social context model of envy and social undermining. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 643–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elron, E., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Influence and political processes in cyberspace: The case of global virtual teams. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(3), 295–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fedor, D. B., & Maslyn, J. M. (2002). Politics and political behavior: Where else do we go from here? In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (Vol. 1, pp. 271–285). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fedor, D., Maslyn, J., Farmer, S., & Bettenhausen, K. (2008). The contribution of positive politics to the prediction of employee reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(1), 76–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., Chachere, J. G., & Pondy, L. R. (1989). Myths and politics in organizational contexts. Group & Organization Studies, 14(1), 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G., Harrell-Cook, G., & Dulebohn, J. (2000). Organizational politics: The nature of the relationship between politics perceptions and political behavior. In S. Bacharach & E. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 89–130). Jai Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18(1), 93–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G. R., Perrewé, P. L., Daniels, S. R., Lawong, D., & Holmes, J. J. (2017). Social influence and politics in organizational research: What we know and what we need to know. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(1), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management: Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 3–31). Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 351–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J., & Butts, M. (2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 969–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • German, H., Fortin, M., & Read, D. (2016). Justice judgments: Individual self-insight and between- and within-person consistency. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2(1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graso, M., Camps, J., Strah, N., & Brebels, L. (2020). Organizational justice enactment: An agent-focused review and path forward. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 116, 103296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • HBR Ascend Staff. (2019). The changing perspectives of young professionals on work and the workplace. Retrieved from https://hbrascend.org/topics/the-changing-perspectives-work-and-the-workplace-youth-skills-survey/

  • Hill, E. T., Matta, F. K., & Mitchell, M. S. (2021). Seeing the glass as half full or empty: The role of affect-induced optimistic and pessimistic states on justice perceptions and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 1265–1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochwarter, W. A. (2017). The positive side of organizational politics. In G. R. Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations (pp. 191–212). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochwarter, W., Kacmar, C., Perrewé, P., & Johnson, D. (2003). Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationship between politics perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 438–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochwarter, W. A., Rosen, C. C., Jordan, S. L., Ferris, G. R., Ejaz, A., & Maher, L. P. (2020). Perceptions of organizational politics research: Past, present, and future. Journal of Management, 46(6), 879–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, L., Bobocel, D. R., & Chen, V. (2021). Delivering bad news fairly: Higher construal level promotes interactional justice enactment through perspective taking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(6), 708–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. U., Rogers, A., Stewart, R., David, E. M., & Witt, L. A. (2017). Effects of politics, emotional stability, and LMX on job dedication. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(1), 121–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). The good and bad of being fair: Effects of procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 635–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keem, S., Shalley, C. E., Kim, E., & Jeong, I. (2018). Are creative individuals bad apples? A dual pathway model of unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 416–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kish-Gephart, J., Detert, J., Trevino, L. K., Baker, V., & Martin, S. (2014). Situational moral disengagement: Can the effects of self-interest be mitigated? Journal of Business Ethics, 125(2), 267–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleshinski, C. E., Wilson, K. S., Stevenson-Street, J. M., & Scott, B. A. (2020). Principled leader behaviors: An integrative framework and extension of why leaders are fair, ethical, and non-abusive. Academy of Management Annals, 15(1), 1–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L., & Rymph, R. D. (1998). What motivates fairness? The role of subordinate assertive behavior on manager’s interactional fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 731–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(4), 370–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, A., & Cropanzano, R. (2009). Fairness at the group level: Justice climate and intraunit justice climate. Journal of Management, 35(3), 564–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, C., Liang, J., & Farh, J. L. (2020). Speaking up when water is murky: An uncertainty- based model linking perceived organizational politics to employee voice. Journal of Management, 46(3), 443–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, F., Liang, J., & Chen, M. (2021). The danger of blindly following: Examining the relationship between authoritarian leadership and unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Management and Organization Review, 17(3), 524–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., & West, S. G. (2016). Weekly cycles in daily report data: An overlooked issue. Journal of Personality, 84(5), 560–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madison, D. L., Allen, R. W., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1980). Organizational politics: An exploration of managers’ perceptions. Human Relations, 33(2), 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maslyn, J. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1998). Perceptions of politics: Does measuring different foci matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 645–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mawritz, M. B., Folger, R., & Latham, G. P. (2014). Supervisors’ exceedingly difficult goals and abusive supervision: The mediating effects of hindrance stress, anger, and anxiety. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 358–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazar, N., & Aggarwal, P. (2011). Greasing the palm: Can collectivism promote bribery? Psychological Science, 22(7), 843–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcclean, S. T., Yim, J., Courtright, S. H., & Dunford, B. B. (2021). Transformed by the family: An episodic, attachment theory perspective on family-work enrichment and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(12), 1848–1866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molinsky, A., & Margolis, J. (2005). Necessary evils and interpersonal sensitivity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 245–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Klebe Treviño, L., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir (Zapata), C. P., Sherf, E. N., & Liu, J. T. (2022). It’s not only what you do, but why you do it: How managerial motives influence employees’ fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(4), 581–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 881–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, A., Le, H., North-Samardzic, A., & Cohen, M. (2020). Moral disengagement at work: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(3), 535–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oc, B. (2018). Contextual leadership: A systematic review of how contextual factors shape leadership and its outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 218–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogunfowora, B. T., Nguyen, V. Q., Steel, P., & Hwang, C. C. (2022). A meta-analytic investigation of the antecedents, theoretical correlates, and consequences of moral disengagement at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(5), 746–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1981). Understanding the role of power in decision making. Power in organizations (pp. 404–423). Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puranik, H., Koopman, J., & Vough, H. (2021). Excuse me, do you have a minute? An exploration of the dark- and bright-side effects of daily work interruptions for employee well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(12), 1867–1884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin, X., Ren, R., Zhang, Z. X., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Considering self-interests and symbolism together: How instrumental and value-expressive motives interact to influence supervisors’ justice behavior. Personnel Psychology, 71(2), 225–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizvi, S., & Bobocel, D. R. (2015). Using the concept of distance to broaden the horizons of organizational justice. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), The social dynamics of organizational justice (pp. 37–60). Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1438–1451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, C. C., Koopman, J., Gabriel, A. S., & Johnson, R. E. (2016). Who strikes back? A daily investigation of when and why incivility begets incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(11), 1620–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, E. A., Verdorfer, A. P., & Peus, C. (2019). Shedding light on leaders’ self-interest: Theory and measurement of exploitative leadership. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1401–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, E. L. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 756–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Justice as a dependent variable: Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1597–1609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B. A., Garza, A. S., Conlon, D. E., & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Why do managers act fairly in the first place? A daily investigation of “hot” and “cold” motives and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1571–1591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo, M. G., Barrett, L. F., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). The role of affective experience in work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 423–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherf, E. N., Gajendran, R. S., & Posner, B. Z. (2021). Seeking and finding justice: Why and when managers’ feedback seeking enhances justice enactment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(6), 741–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherf, E. N., Venkataramani, V., & Gajendra, N. R. S. (2019). Too busy to be fair? The effect of workload and rewards on managers’ justice rule adherence. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 469–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinbach, A., Gamache, D. L., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). Don’t get it misconstrued: Construal level shifts and flexibility in the upper echelons. Academy of Management Review, 44(4), 871–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Breaux-Soignet, D. M. (2017). Abusive supervision as political activity: Distinguishing impulsive and strategic expressions of downward hostility. In G. R. Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations (pp. 191–212). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Houwelingen, G., Van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2017). Fairness enactment as response to higher level unfairness: The roles of self-construal and spatial distance. Journal of Management, 43(2), 319–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Houwelingen, G., van Dijke, M., van Hiel, A., & De Cremer, D. (2021). Cognitive foundations of impartial punitive decision making in organizations: Attribution and abstraction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(6), 726–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Vashdi, D. R. (2017). Politics in and around teams: Toward a team-level conceptualization of organizational politics. In G. R. Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations (pp. 287–322). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, T., Kleshinski, C. E., Longmire, N. H., & He, W. (2022). Rekindling the fire and stoking the flames: How and when workplace interpersonal capitalization facilitates pride and knowledge sharing at work. In-Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. The University of Iowa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, D. T., Baer, M. D., & Sessions, H. (2019). Hot pursuit: The affective consequences of organization-set versus self-set goals for emotional exhaustion and citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(2), 166–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiesenfeld, B., Reyt, J. N., Brockner, J., & Trope, Y. (2017). Construal level theory in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 367–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yammarino, F. J., & Mumford, M. D. (2017). Leadership and organizational politics: A multilevel review and framework for pragmatic deals. In G. R. Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research consideration (pp. 323–354). Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zapata, C. P., Carton, A. M., & Liu, J. T. (2016). When justice promotes injustice: Why minority leaders experience bias when they adhere to interpersonal justice rules. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1150–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., & Wei, F. (2014). It’s not fair... or is it? The role of justice and leadership in explaining work stressor-job performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 675–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwank, J., Diehl, M. R., & Fortin, M. (2022). Three paths to feeling just: How managers grapple with justice conundrums during organizational change. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05179-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwank, J., Diehl, M. R., & Gollwitzer, M. (2023). The corporate samaritan: Advancing understanding of the role of deontic motive in justice enactment. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05409-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Chao C. Chen for his thoughtful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the paper. The work in this article was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. 71902100, No. 72272044, and No. 71802149), the Social Science Foundation Project of Jiangsu Province (Project No. 22GLB006), and the General Project of Ministry of Education Foundation on Humanities and Social Sciences (19YJA630118). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mo Chen, School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China. Email: chenmo@hit.edu.cn.

Funding

This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (71,902,100, 72,272,044, 71,802,149).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China

    Depeng Liu

  2. School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China

    Mo Chen

  3. Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA

    Isabelle Yi Ren

  4. College of Business, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai, China

    Xuhong Pang

  5. School of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

    Yapu Zhao

Authors
  1. Depeng Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mo Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Isabelle Yi Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xuhong Pang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yapu Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mo Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The ethical statement is not applicable for this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Vignette Scenarios for Study 3.

High Org Politics

Imagine you are a marketing director in the marketing division with around 80 employees, at M&Y Inc., a large retail company. Having now worked at the marking division for 8 months, it’s become clear that your subordinates generally engage in selfish behaviors for their own career advancement. Powerful cliques or influential groups widely exist within your division. People build themselves up by tearing others down. Everyone has his or her own agendas and places self-interest above the interest of the company and other employees. To advance themselves or their ideas regardless of whether their ideas have merits, people often spend much time to ingratiate themselves with those who can help them and retaliate those who can potentially obstruct their interests or that of their small group. You realize that most of your subordinates have become “yes men,” afraid of offending powerful others. It seems that no clear rules and regulations exist to stop these inappropriate actions.

Low Org Politics

Imagine you are a marketing director in the marketing division with around 80 employees, at M&Y Inc., a large retail company. Having now worked at the marking division for 8 months, it becomes clear that your subordinates generally engage in selfless behaviors to provide the best services for the company. Powerful coalitions or influential groups are almost nonexistent within your division. People never build themselves up by tearing others down. Everyone has the same agenda and places the interest of the company and other employees above self-interest. To achieve the company goal or promote the ideas that would help the company, people can collaborate with colleagues frankly and equally. You realize that most of your subordinates have the courage to rock the boat without being afraid of offending powerful others. Clear rules and regulations exist to elicit appropriate actions.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, D., Chen, M., Ren, I.Y. et al. How and When Leaders’ Perceptions of Team Politics Influence Justice Rule Adherence: A Moral Self-Regulation Perspective. J Bus Ethics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05549-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05549-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation