The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders

Bibliographic Data

ID6204534
AuthorsT R Tyler (0000-0002-2647-7670, Northwestern University, corresponding author), Andrew Caine
Year1981
Volume41
Issue4
Pages642-655
Publication date1981-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Personality and Social Psychology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-3514 • E-ISSN: 1939-1315
PublisherAmerican Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1037//0022-3514.41.4.642
OpenAlexW4255229385
LanguageEN
Citations received106
References cited10

Northwestern University In this article, data collected in four studies—two experiments and two surveys— were used to test the hypothesis that the procedures used by leaders to allocate outcomes have an impact on leadership evaluations that is independent of outcome level or outcome fairness. Two studies tested this hypothesis within the context of student evaluations of teachers, and two tested it within the context of citizen evaluations of political leaders. The procedural justice hypothesis was strongly supported by all four studies. In each study, strong procedural influences on evaluation were found, influences that were independent of outcome level or outcome fairness. In addition, in both surveys of naturally occurring evaluations, variations in procedural fairness had a much greater impact on leadership endorsement than did variations in outcome level, outcome satisfaction, or outcome fairness. These findings suggest that in experimental settings subjects can be sensitive to both outcomes and procedures. In natural settings, however, individuals focus on procedures rather than outcomes in forming their evaluations of leaders. Research on outcome satisfaction has been dominated by a concern with the direct and indirect effects of outcomes on outcome satisfaction. Researchers who have followed a social exchange perspective (Homans, 1974; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) have assumed that an individual's satisfaction with outcomes in a group is directly related to the absolute or relative level of outcomes received, whereas the literature on distributive justice has suggested that outcome satisfaction is an indirect result of outcome level through judgments of outcome fairness (Adams, 1965; Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). This same focus on outcomes has also been found in research on satisfaction with group leaders. Research on leadership endorsement has been dominated by work on the influence of group outcomes on the evaluation of group leaders (Hollander & Julian, 1970; Julian, Hollander, & Regula, 1969), work recently supplemented by a concern

Applied Psychology · Community Health and Development · Cultural Differences and Values · Emotional Intelligence and Performance · Organizational Leadership and Management Strategies · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub