Research on procedural justice has consistently found that increases in voice are associated with enhanced ratings of procedural fairness, satisfaction with leaders, and acceptance of decisions made by authorities. This research extends those findings in two ways by (a) replicating the voice effect in small group decision making with a low status leader and (b) illustrating the limit of voice in improving support for leaders under conditions of persistent conflict. Results from Study 1 suggest that people care about their treatment by leaders because it provides them with information about their value within the group rather than because the leader controls important resources. Study 2 demonstrates that very high levels of voice can be associated with reduced leader support and lower levels of decision satisfaction under conditions of persistent conflict. These results suggest that extensive use of voice by leaders has limited advantages when people fundamentally disagree.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bower, J. L. (1965a). Group decision making: A report of an experimental study. Behavioral Science, 10, 277-289.
2.
Bower, J. L. (1965b). The role of conflict in economic decision making groups. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 253-277.
3.
Cropanzano, R. , & Folger, R. (1991). Procedural justice and worker motivation. In R. Steers & L. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (5th ed., pp. 131-143). New York: McGraw-Hill.
4.
Cropanzano, R. , & Randall, M. L. (1995). Advance notice as a means of reducing relative deprivation. Social Justice Research, 8, 217-238.
5.
Earley, P. C. , & Lind, E. A. (1987). Procedural justice and participation in task selection: The role of control in mediating justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1148-1160.
6.
Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108-119.
7.
Folger, R. (1986). Mediation, arbitration, and the psychology of procedural justice. In R. Lewicki, M. Bazerman, & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 57-80). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
8.
Folger, R. , Cropanzano, R., Timmerman, T. A., Howes, J. C., & Mitchell, D. (1996). Elaborating procedural fairness: Justice becomes both simpler and more complex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 534-441.
9.
Folger, R. , & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 3, pp. 141-183). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
10.
Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
11.
Gouran, D. S. (1982). Making decisions in groups: Choices and consequences. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
12.
Herek, G. , Janis, I. L., & Huth, P. (1987). Decision making during international crises: Is quality of process related to outcome?Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31, 203-226.
13.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1984). Does consensus really result in higher quality group decisions? In G. M. Phillips & J. T. Wood (Eds.), Emergent issues in human decision making (pp. 40-49). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
14.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Holloman, C. R. , & Hendrick, H. W. (1972). Adequacy of group decisions as a function of the decision-making process. Academy of Management Journal, 15, 175-184.
16.
Houlden, P. , LaTour, S., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Preferences for modes of dispute resolution as a function of process and decision control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 13-30.
17.
Human Synergistics . (1987). Desert survival situation. Plymouth, MI: Author.
18.
Humphrey, R. (1985). How work roles influence perception: Structural-cognitive processes and organizational behavior. American Sociological Review, 50, 242-252.
19.
Huo, Y. J. , Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer. Psychological Science, 7, 40-45.
20.
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial/organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 75-170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
21.
Kanfer, R. , Sawyer, J., Earley, P. C., & Lind, E. A. (1987). Fairness and participation in evaluation procedures: Effects on task attitudes and performance. Social Justice Research, 1, 235-249.
22.
Kerr, N. L. , Atkin, R., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R., & Davis, J. (1976). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 349-363.
23.
Korsgaard, M. A. , Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 60-84.
24.
LaTour, S. (1978). Determinants of participant and observer satisfaction with adversary and inquisitorial modes of adjudication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1531-1545.
25.
Levine, J. M. . (1989). Reactions to opinion deviance in small groups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 187-231). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Lind, E. A. (1990). Arbitrating high-stakes cases: An evaluation of courtannexed arbitration in a United States district court. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
27.
Lind, E. A. , Erickson, B. E., Friedland, N., & Dickenberger, M. (1978). Reactions to procedural models for adjudicative conflict resolution. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 318-341.
28.
Lind, E. A. , Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
29.
Lind, E. A. , Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., & deVera Park, M. (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 224-251.
30.
Lind, E. A. , Kurtz, S., Musante, L., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J. (1980). Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 643-653.
31.
Lind, E. A. , & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
32.
Maier, N. R. F. (1950). The quality of group decisions as influenced by the discussion leader. Human relations, 3, 155-174.
33.
Maier, N. R. F. , & Solem, A. R. (1952). The contribution of a discussion leader to the quality of group thinking: The effective use of minority opinions. Human Relations, 5, 277-288.
34.
McGrath, J. E. (1988). The social psychology of time. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35.
Miller, C. E. (1989). The social psychological effect of group decision rules. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 327-355). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
Mucchi-Faina, A. , Maass, A., & Volpato, C. (1991). Social influence: The case of originality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 183-197.
37.
Nemeth, C. J. (1977). Interactions between jurors as a function of majority vs. unanimity decision rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 38-56.
38.
Nemeth, C. J. , & Kwan, J. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 17, 788-799.
39.
Nemeth, C. J. , Mayseless, O., Sherman, J., & Brown, Y. (1990). Exposure to dissent and recall of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 429-437.
40.
Nemeth, C. J. , & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority and minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 45-55.
41.
Nemiroff, P. M. , & King, D. C. (1975). Group decision-making performance as influenced by consensus and self-orientation. Human Relations, 28, 1-21.
42.
Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1107-1121.
43.
Peterson, R. S. , & Nemeth, C. J. (1996). Focus versus flexibility: Majority and minority influence can both improve performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 14-23.
44.
Peterson, R. S. , Owens, P. D., Tetlock, P. E., Fan, E., & Martorana, P. (1998). Group dynamics in top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of organizational failure and success in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 272-305.
45.
Rawlins, W. K. (1984). Consensus in decision-making groups: A conceptual history. In G. M. Phillips & J. T. Wood (Eds.), Emergent issues in human decision making (pp. 19-39). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
46.
Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190-207.
47.
Sheppard, B. H. (1985). Justice is no simple matter: Case for elaborating our model of procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 953-962.
48.
Skitka, L. J. , & Houston, D. A. (1996, April). When just procedures and out-comes conflict. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Social Psychologists of Chicago.
49.
Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 331-376). New York: Academic Press.
50.
Tetlock, P. E. , Armor, D., & Peterson, R. S. (1994). The slavery debate in antebellum America: Cognitive style, value conflict and the limits of compromise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 115-126.
51.
Tetlock, P. E. , Peterson, R. S., & Berry, J. M. (1993). Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 500-511.
52.
Thibaut, J. W. , & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
54.
Tyler, T. R. , & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 642-655.
55.
Tyler, T. R. , & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-192). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
56.
Tyler, T. R. , Rasinski, K. A., & Spodick, N. (1985). Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 72-81.
57.
Vidmar, N. (1992). Procedural justice and alternative dispute resolution. Psychological Science, 3, 224-228.
58.
Walker, L. , LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. W. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 295-310.
59.
Wood, J. T. (1984). Alternative methods of group decision making: A comparative examination of consensus, negotiation, and voting. In G. M. Phillips & J. T. Wood (Eds.), Emergent issues in human decision making (pp. 3-18). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
