IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v21y2012i5d10.1007_s10726-011-9230-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mediating Hierarchical Labor Conflicts: Procedural Justice Makes a Difference—for Subordinates

Author

Listed:
  • Katalien Bollen

    (University of Leuven)

  • Heidi Ittner

    (Otto-von-Guericke-University)

  • Martin C. Euwema

    (University of Leuven)

Abstract

Investigating mediations of hierarchical labor conflicts, this study focuses on the influence of hierarchical position on perceptions of procedural justice, mediation effectiveness and its moderating effect on this relationship. Since the influence of hierarchical position is omnipresent in organizational life, it is most likely that also parties’ perceptions and appreciation of the mediation will be affected. To test our hypotheses, we use data from real mediation cases dealing with hierarchical labor conflicts in the Netherlands. In line with our hypotheses, results indicate that supervisors—compared with subordinates—perceive more procedural justice and perceive the mediation as more effective. The most striking result however, is that especially subordinates’ perceptions of mediation effectiveness are determined by perceptions of procedural justice: especially when confronted with low levels of procedural justice, their perceptions of mediation effectiveness are negatively affected. This is not true for supervisors. Implications for mediation theory and practice are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Katalien Bollen & Heidi Ittner & Martin C. Euwema, 2012. "Mediating Hierarchical Labor Conflicts: Procedural Justice Makes a Difference—for Subordinates," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 621-636, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:21:y:2012:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9230-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-011-9230-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-011-9230-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-011-9230-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Druckman & Mara Olekalns, 2008. "Emotions in negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, January.
    2. Chen, Ya-Ru & Brockner, Joel & Greenberg, Jerald, 2003. "When is it "a pleasure to do business with you?" The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 1-21.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michele Griessmair & Johannes Gettinger, 2020. "Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action–Reaction Sequences in Enacting Turning Points in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 425-459, June.
    2. Luís Aguiar-Conraria & Pedro C. Magalhães, 2018. "Procedural Fairness, the Economy, and Support for Political Authorities (Forthcoming at Political Psychology (submitted pre-print version))," NIPE Working Papers 05/2018, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    3. Katharina Burger & Leroy White & Mike Yearworth, 2018. "Why so Serious? Theorising Playful Model-Driven Group Decision Support with Situated Affectivity," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 789-810, October.
    4. Christoph Laubert & Jennifer Parlamis, 2019. "Are You Angry (Happy, Sad) or Aren’t You? Emotion Detection Difficulty in Email Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 377-413, April.
    5. Erik Hoelzl & Luise Hahn & Maria Pollai & Jan Masak, 2013. "The Effect of Feedback on Process and Outcome of Loan Negotiations: Consequences on Risk Aversion and the Willingness to Compromise," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 541-559, May.
    6. Lukasz W. Jochemczyk & Andrzej Nowak, 2010. "Constructing a Network of Shared Agreement: A Model of Communication Processes in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 591-620, November.
    7. Lu, Zhi & Mattila, Anna & Liu, Stephanie Q., 2021. "When customers like preferential recovery (and when not)?," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    8. Torelli, Carlos J. & Leslie, Lisa M. & Stoner, Jennifer L. & Puente, Raquel, 2014. "Cultural determinants of status: Implications for workplace evaluations and behaviors," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 34-48.
    9. Koopman, Joel & Matta, Fadel K. & Scott, Brent A. & Conlon, Donald E., 2015. "Ingratiation and popularity as antecedents of justice: A social exchange and social capital perspective," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 132-148.
    10. Lee, Saerom & Bolton, Lisa E., 2020. "Mixed signals? Decoding luxury consumption in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 331-345.
    11. Tyler, Tom R., 2006. "Process utility and help seeking: What do people want from experts?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 360-376, June.
    12. Steven L. Blader & Ya-Ru Chen, 2011. "What Influences How Higher-Status People Respond to Lower-Status Others? Effects of Procedural Fairness, Outcome Favorability, and Concerns About Status," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 1040-1060, August.
    13. Anne M. Wilkins & Dana R. Hermanson & Jeffrey R. Cohen, 2016. "Do Compensation Committee Members Perceive Changing CEO Incentive Performance Targets Mid-Cycle to be Fair?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 623-638, September.
    14. F. Ackermann & M. Yearworth & L. White, 2018. "Micro-processes in Group Decision and Negotiation: Practices and Routines for Supporting Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 709-713, October.
    15. Harri T. Luomala & Rajesh Kumar & J. D. Singh & Matti Jaakkola, 2015. "When an Intercultural Business Negotiation Fails: Comparing the Emotions and Behavioural Tendencies of Individualistic and Collectivistic Negotiators," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 537-561, May.
    16. Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano & David Urbano, 2009. "Overview of Collaborative Entrepreneurship: An Integrated Approach Between Business Decisions and Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 419-430, September.
    17. Si Liu & David Ríos Insua, 2020. "Group Decision Making with Affective Features," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 843-869, October.
    18. Ya-Ru Chen & Randall S. Peterson & Damon J. Phillips & Joel M. Podolny & Cecilia L. Ridgeway, 2012. "Introduction to the Special Issue: Bringing Status to the Table—Attaining, Maintaining, and Experiencing Status in Organizations and Markets," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 299-307, April.
    19. Jone L. Pearce & Qiumei Jane Xu, 2012. "Rating Performance or Contesting Status: Evidence Against the Homophily Explanation for Supervisor Demographic Skew in Performance Ratings," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 373-385, April.
    20. Ogliastri, Enrique & Quintanilla, Carlos, 2016. "Building cross-cultural negotiation prototypes in Latin American contexts from foreign executives' perceptions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 452-458.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:21:y:2012:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9230-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.