The Fair Share – Multilevel Distributive Justice as Cross-Level Moderator for the Impact of Restructuring Perceptions

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of constructs, definitions, and measures.

	Abbreviation	Definition or description	Measure
Restructuring impact	RI	RI can be defined as restructuring-related events occurring in employees’ work units (Fedor et al., 2006)	Employees rated four items from Fedor et al. (2006) on a five-point Likert scale, for example: ‘As a result of this restructuring I find greater demands placed on me at work.’
Perceived Distributive Justice	PDJ	PDJ is the extent to the allocation of an outcome is consistent with the goals for a particular situation (Colquitt, 2001)	Employees rated three items from Colquitt (2001) on a five-point Likert scale, for example: ‘Does your outcome reflect the effort you have put into your work?’
Distributive Justice Climate	DJC	DJC is the shared perception of PDJ among members of a team or organization.	Individual ratings of PDJ are aggregated to the team or organizational level.
Emotional Exhaustion	EE	EE is a state of physical and emotional depletion that can result from excessive job demands and continuous hassles (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998)	Employees rated four items from Demerouti et al. (2003) on a five-point Likert scale, for example: ‘After my work, I regularly feel worn out and weary.’
Work Engagement (control)	WE	WE is defined by high activation and positive emotions such as energy, dedication, readiness for action and support (Bakker et al., 2011)	CEOs and leaders rated two items from the COPSOQ (Burr et al., 2019) on a five-point Likert scale, for example: ‘I am enthusiastic about my job.’

Table 2. Sample description.

	Organizations
Sectors	42% Human health and social work activities (non-public)
	31% Public administration
	8% Service
	8% Manufacturing
	4% Construction
	4% Professional, scientific and technical activities
	4% Administrative and support service activities
Size	M = 550 employees, SD = 500, range = 54–2,314
	CEOs	Leaders	Employees
N	31	153	1,077
Response rate	91%	93%	71%
Gender	63% male, 37% female	53% male, 47% female	42% male, 58% female
Age	60% were 55 years or older	69% were between 35 and 54 years	56% were between 35 and 54 years old

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations.

	ICC1	ICC2	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.
Individual level
1. Restructuring Impact	-	-
2. Perceived Distributive Justice	-	-	−.17**
3. Emotional Exhaustion	-	-	.25**	−.31**
Team level
1. Restructuring Impact	.14	.52
2. Distributive Justice Climate	.24	.68	−.16*
3. Emotional Exhaustion	.10	.41	.36**	−.31**
4. Leader Work Engagement	-	-	.06	−.05	−.05
Organizational level
1. Restructuring Impact	.07	.77
2. Distributive Justice Climate	.21	.91	−.11
3. Emotional Exhaustion	.05	.71	.58**	−.57**
4. Leader Work Engagement	.23	.65	−.37	.28	−.37
5. CEO Work Engagement	-	-	−.37	.50*	−.50*	.42*
M	-	-	3.31	3.09	2.93	3.83	3.92
SD	-	-	0.95	1.07	1.03	0.72	0.99
Cronbach’s Alpha	-	-	.77	.91	.85	.63	.72

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01.

Table 4. Results from Bayesian Three-Level Model.

	Distributive Justice			Emotional Exhaustion
Level 1: Individual Level	B	P	BF	B	P	BF
Restructuring Impact (RI)	−.17**	.99	>100	.16**	.98	60.3
Perceived Distributive Justice (PDJ)				−.20**	.99	>100
CI x DJ – Level 1 Interaction				−.00	.53	1.1
Level 2: Team Level
Restructuring Impact (RI)	−.16*	.98	40.9	.21**	.99	>100
Distributive Justice Climate (DJC)				−.15**	.99	>100
Leader Work Engagement	−.01	.45	0.8	−.01	.61	1.6
Level 2 Cross-level Interaction: RI x Team DJC				−.07*	.94	15.3
Level 3: Organizational Level
Restructuring Impact (RI)	.02	.47	0.9	.17**	.99	>100
Distributive Justice Climate (DJC)				−.18**	.99	>100
Leader Work Engagement	.03	.56	1.3	−.02	.61	1.6
CEO Work Engagement	.58**	.98	43.7	.05	.27	0.4
Level 3 Cross-level Interaction: RI x Organizational DJC				−.01	.55	1.2
Level 3 Cross-level Interaction: Team RI x Organizational DJC				−.05	.87	6.6

Notes. The table contains unstandardized coefficients. P = probability of research hypothesis as derived from the posterior distribution, BF = Bayes Factor.

*Probability for hypothesis > 90%, **Probability for hypothesis > 95%.

Figure 1. Cross-level interaction plot.

Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00852.x

 Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.486

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Vardakou, I., & Kantas, A. (2003). The convergent validity of Two burnout instruments. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.19.1.12

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Work engagement: Further reflections on the state of play. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.546711

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Burr, H., Berthelsen, H., Moncada, S., Nubling, M., Dupret, E., Demiral, Y., Oudyk, J., Kristensen, T. S., Llorens, C., Navarro, A., Lincke, H. J., Bocerean, C., Sahan, C., Smith, P., & Pohrt, A. (2019). The third version of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Safety and Health at Work, 10(4), 482–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2019.10.002

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar