Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (7) : 829-840     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00829
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Power disparity and team conflict: The roles of procedural Justice and legitimacy
ZHU Yue1,XIE Jiangpei1,JIN Yanghua1(),SHI Junqi2
1 School of Business Administration, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
2 Lingnan (University) College, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
Download: PDF(730 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Power disparity refers to the differences in the concentration of power among team members. Although the pervasiveness and importance of power disparity have been well recognized, whether power disparity is functional or dysfunctional remains uncertain. Some researchers have suggested that power disparity can improve team performance by facilitating coordination, while others have found that power disparity, which may be perceived as unequal and unfair, can trigger team conflict. In this context, our study aims to reconcile these contrasting perspectives by proposing that procedural justice and team legitimacy are moderators in the relationship between power disparity and team conflict (task conflict and relationship conflict). We propose that when there is a high level of procedural justice, which helps legitimize a team’s power disparity, members are likely to accept their team’s distribution of power and coordinate with each another. However, when there is a low level of procedural justice, which can create the perception that a team’s power disparity is illegitimate, members are likely to view their team’s distribution of power as unequal and unfair. In this case, low-ranking members may show their opposition by competing over power, producing team conflict.
Data were collected from two manufacturing companies in Zhejiang Province. To reduce the potential influence of common method bias, we used a two-wave design with a one-month interval. At Time 1, 450 employees in 90 teams responded to questions about power disparity, procedural justice, team legitimacy, and control variables. At Time 2, 376 employees in the 81 teams that had completed the Time 1 survey responded to questions about task conflict and relationship conflict. The final sample contained 322 employees in 70 teams. We measured individuals’ responses regarding their teams’ power disparity with a round-robin approach (i.e., asking individuals to rate the power of each team member) and calculated the coefficient of variation in those responses. For the purpose of analysis, we aggregated the measures of task conflict, relationship conflict, procedural justice, and team legitimacy to the group level.
The results showed that both procedural justice and team legitimacy moderated the relationship between power disparity and team conflict (task conflict and relationship conflict). When procedural justice was high, power disparity was negatively related to task conflict and relationship conflict, while these relationships became positive when procedural justice was low. In a similar vein, when team legitimacy was high, power disparity was negatively related to task conflict and relationship conflict, but when team legitimacy was low, it was positively related to both kinds of conflict. Moreover, procedural justice was shown to be positively related to team legitimacy. Finally, following the procedures suggested by Grant and Berry (2011), we conducted a mediated moderation analysis to test the integrative model. The results showed that team legitimacy mediated the moderation effect of procedural justice on the relationship between power disparity and team conflict (task conflict and relationship conflict).
Our findings contribute to the literature in two ways. First, the study extends our understanding of the relationship between power disparity and team conflict by testing procedural justice and team legitimacy as moderators. Second, our findings reveal that power disparity can either decrease or increase team conflict when procedural justice (team legitimacy) is high and low, respectively. Our study thereby provides a new approach to the effects of power disparity that integrates the functional and dysfunctional perspectives.

Keywords power disparity      team conflict      procedural justice      legitimacy     
ZTFLH:  B849:C93  
Corresponding Authors: Yanghua JIN     E-mail: jinyanghua@163.com
Issue Date: 22 May 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Yue ZHU
Jiangpei XIE
Yanghua JIN
Junqi SHI
Cite this article:   
Yue ZHU,Jiangpei XIE,Yanghua JIN, et al. Power disparity and team conflict: The roles of procedural Justice and legitimacy[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(7): 829-840.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00829     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2019/V51/I7/829
  
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 性别多样化 0.18 0.21
2 年龄多样化 0.16 0.06 0.03
3 教育水平多样化 0.26 0.18 -0.03 0.09
4 团队类型1 0.37 0.49 -0.17 0.07 0.26
5 团队类型2 0.46 0.50 0.19 0.08 -0.15 -0.71**
6 团队类型3 0.11 0.32 0.00 -0.07 -0.04 -0.28* -0.33**
7 平均团队权力水平 3.37 0.46 -0.04 0.09 -0.02 0.19 0.11 -0.34**
8 团队权力分布差异 0.19 0.11 0.14 -0.13 -0.19 -0.11 0.14 -0.06 -0.08
9 程序公平 5.23 0.41 0.17 -0.02 -0.18 0.03 0.19 -0.28* 0.38** 0.12 (0.80)
10 团队合法性感知 5.53 0.55 0.23 0.08 -0.17 0.03 0.18 -0.13 0.17 0.36** 0.72** (0.89)
11 任务冲突 2.68 0.77 -0.14 0.14 -0.12 0.15 -0.14 -0.10 0.11 -0.01 -0.12 -0.20 (0.86)
12 关系冲突 2.44 0.76 -0.21 0.12 0.12 0.15 -0.17 -0.09 0.15 0.01 -0.17 -0.24* 0.84** (0.94)
  
变量 团队合法
性感知
团队任务冲突 团队关系冲突
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
控制变量
性别多样化 0.24 (0.23) -0.30 (0.46) -0.07 (0.43) -0.00 (0.42) -0.34 (0.42) -0.53 (0.44) -0.29 (0.40) -0.23 (0.40) -0.50 (0.40)
年龄多样化 0.94 (0.84) 2.73 (1.66) 1.73 (1.54) 2.23 (1.55) 2.83 (1.49) 1.98 (1.59) 1.41 (1.44) 1.85 (1.45) 2.34 (1.42)
教育水平多样化 -0.16 (0.28) -0.78 (0.56) -1.09 (0.52) -1.10* (0.51) -1.02* (0.49) 0.46 (0.53) 0.13 (0.49) 0.12 (0.48) 0.19 (0.47)
团队类型1 0.16 (0.23) -0.29 (0.44) -0.08 (0.41) -0.02 (0.41) -0.17 (0.39) -0.65 (0.42) -0.43 (0.39) -0.38 (0.38) -0.51 (0.37)
团队类型2 0.17 (0.22) -0.56 (0.43) -0.42 (0.40) -0.37 (0.40) -0.36 (0.38) -0.83 (0.41) -0.69 (0.37) -0.64 (0.37) -0.64 (0.36)
团队类型3 0.23 (0.24) -0.65 (0.48) -0.62 (0.44) -0.52 (0.44) -0.62 (0.42) -0.80 (0.46) -0.77 (0.41) -0.68 (0.41) -0.77 (0.40)
平均团队权力水平 -0.13 (0.12) 0.25 (0.23) 0.13 (0.22) 0.10 (0.21) 0.15 (0.20) 0.40 (0.22) 0.28 (0.20) 0.25 (0.20) 0.29 (0.19)
主效用
团队权力分布差异 0.27 (0.88) -0.28 (0.83) 0.28 (0.89) 0.63 (0.85) 0.82 (0.84) 0.24 (0.77) 0.74 (0.83) 1.02 (0.81)
程序公平 1.00** (0.13) -0.37 (0.26) -0.58* (0.25) -0.20 (0.34) -0.15 (0.33) -0.39 (0.25) -0.61 (0.23) -0.27 (0.32) -0.23 (0.31)
团队合法性感知 -0.40 (0.25) -0.46 (0.24) -0.36 (0.24) -0.40 (0.23)
调节效用
团队权力分布差异×
程序公平
-6.06** (1.78) -6.11** (1.76) 1.79 (3.40) -6.41** (1.67) -6.45** (1.65) -0.04 (3.23)
团队权力分布差异×
团队合法性感知
-6.57* (2.46) -5.34* (2.34)
R2 0.56 0.15 0.29 0.32 0.39 0.20 0.36 0.38 0.43
ΔR2 0.14** 0.03 0.07* 0.16** 0.02 0.05*
  
  
  
  
  
[1] Aiken L. S., & West S. G . ( 1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[2] Aime F., Humphrey S., DeRue D. S., & Paul J. B . ( 2014). The riddle of hierarchy: Power transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57( 2), 327-352.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2011.0756
[3] Anderson C., & Brown C. E . ( 2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 55-89.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191308510000031
[4] Anicich E. M., Fast N. J., Halevy N., & Galinsky A. D . ( 2016). When the bases of social hierarchy collide: Power without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organization Science, 27( 1), 123-140.
[5] Bentler P. M., & Chou C. P . ( 1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16( 2), 78-117.
[6] Bezrukova K., Spell C. S., & Perry J. L . ( 2010). Violent splits or healthy divides? Coping with injustice through faultlines. Personnel Psychology, 63( 3), 719-751.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/peps.2010.63.issue-3
[7] Bian R., Che H., & Yang H . ( 2007). Item parceling strategies in Structural Equation Modeling. Advances in Psychological Science, 15( 3), 567-576.
[7] [ 卞冉, 车宏生, 阳辉 . ( 2007). 项目组合在结构方程模型中的应用. 心理科学进展, 15( 3), 567-576.]
[8] Blader S. L., & Chen Y. R . ( 2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102( 5), 994-1014.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0026651
[9] Blader S. L., & Tyler T. R, . ( 2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94( 2), 445-464.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0013935
[10] Bloom M. , ( 1999). The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 42( 1), 25-40.
[11] Bunderson J. S., van der Vegt, G. S.., Cantimur Y., & Rink F . ( 2016). Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Academy of Management Journal, 59( 4), 1265-1289.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2014.0601
[12] Cantimur Y., Rink F., & van der Vegt, G. S. ., ( 2016). When and why hierarchy steepness is related to team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25( 5), 658-673.
url: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1148030
[13] Chen G., Mathieu J., & Bliese P. D . ( 2004). A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multilevel issues: Multilevel issues in organizational behavior and processes (Vol.3, pp.273-303). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
[14] Chun J. S., & Choi J. N . ( 2014). Members' needs, intragroup conflict, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99( 3), 437-450.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0036363
[15] Colquitt J. A . ( 2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86( 3), 386-400.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
[16] De Cremer D. , ( 2006). When authorities influence followers’ affect: The interactive effect of procedural justice and transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15( 3), 322-351.
url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13594320600627662
[17] De Dreu C. K. W, & Weingart L. R . ( 2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88( 4), 741-749.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
[18] De Hoogh, A. H. B. Greer L. L & Den Hartog, D. N. ., ( 2015). Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26( 5), 687-701.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S104898431500003X
[19] De Wit F. R., Greer L. L., & Jehn K. A . ( 2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97( 2), 360-390.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0024844
[20] Ehrhart M. G . ( 2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57( 1), 61-94.
url: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/peps/57/1
[21] Ellemers N., Wilke H., & van Knippenberg A . ( 1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64( 5), 766-778.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.766
[22] Fast N. J., Halevy N., & Galinsky A. D . ( 2012). The destructive nature of power without status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48( 1), 391-394.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S002210311100196X
[23] Grant A. M., & Berry J. W . ( 2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54( 1), 73-96.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2011.59215085
[24] Greenberg J. , ( 2011). Organizational justice: The dynamics of fairness in the workplace. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol.3, pp.272-327). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
[25] Greer L. L., Caruso H. M., & Jehn K. A . ( 2011). The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116( 1), 116-128.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S074959781100046X
[26] Greer L. L., de Jong B. A., Schouten M. E., & Dannals J. E . ( 2018). Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103( 6), 591-613.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/apl0000291
[27] Greer L. L., Van Bunderen L., & Yu S. Y . ( 2017). The dysfunctions of power in teams: A review and emergent conflict perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 103-124.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191308517300084
[28] Greer L. L., & van Kleef G. A . ( 2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95( 6), 1032-1044.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0020373
[29] Halevy N., Chou Y. E., & Galinsky A. D . ( 2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 1( 1), 32-52.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2041386610380991
[30] Harrison D. A., & Klein K. J . ( 2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32( 4), 1199-1228.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096
[31] Hays N. A., & Bendersky C. , ( 2015). Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status versus power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108( 6), 867-882.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/pspi0000017
[32] Hurd I. , ( 1999). Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization, 53( 2), 379-408.
url: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818399440731/type/journal_article
[33] Jehn K. A . ( 1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40( 2), 256-282.
url: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2393638?origin=crossref
[34] Jehn K. A., Northcraft G. B., & Neale M. A . ( 1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44( 4), 741-763.
url: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2667054?origin=crossref
[35] Kerwin S., Jordan J. S., & Turner B. A . ( 2015). Organizational justice and conflict: Do perceptions of fairness influence disagreement? Sport Management Review, 18( 3), 384-395.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1441352314000886
[36] Koopmann J., Lanaj K., Wang M., Zhou L., & Shi J. Q . ( 2016). Nonlinear effects of team tenure on team psychological safety climate and climate strength: Implications for average team member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 940-957.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/apl0000097
[37] Lammers J., Galinsky A. D., Gordijn E. H., & Otten S . ( 2008). Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19( 6), 558-564.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02123.x
[38] LeBreton J. M., & Senter J. L . ( 2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11( 4), 815-852.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1094428106296642
[39] Leung K., Chiu W.-h., & Au Y.-f . ( 1993). Sympathy and support for industrial actions: A justice analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78( 5), 781-787.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.781
[40] Liao H. & Zhuang, A. J.. ,( 2012). The development and methodology of multilevel model. In X. P. Chen, S. Y. Xu, & J. L. Farn (Ed.), Empirical methods in organizational and management research (2ne edition) (pp. 442-476). Beijing, China: Peking University Press.
[40] [ 廖卉, 庄瑷嘉 . (2012). 多层次理论模型的建立以研究方法. 见陈晓萍, 徐淑英, 樊景立. 组织与管理研究的实证方法 (第二版) (pp. 442-476). 北京: 北京大学出版社.]
[41] Lin X. W., & Leung K. , ( 2014). What signals does procedural justice climate convey? The roles of group status, and organizational benevolence and integrity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35( 4), 464-488.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/job.1899
[42] Little T. D., Cunningham W. A., Shahar G., & Widaman K. F . ( 2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9( 2), 151-173.
url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
[43] Liu D., Zhang Z. & Wang, M.. , ( 2012). Moderated mediation and mediated moderation. In X. P. Chen, S. Y. Xu, & J. L. Farn (Ed.), Empirical methods in organizational and management research (2ne edition) (pp. 550-587). Beijing,China: Peking University Press.
[43] [ 刘东, 张震, 汪默 . (2012). 被调节的中介和被中介的调节:理论构建和模型检验. 见陈晓萍, 徐淑英, 樊景立. 组织与管理研究的实证方法(第二版) (pp. 550-587). 北京: 北京大学出版社.]
[44] Ma L., Yang B. Y., Wang X. L., & Li Y. , ( 2017). On the dimensionality of intragroup conflict: An exploratory study of conflict and its relationship with group innovation performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 28, 538-562.
[45] Magee J. C., & Galinsky A. D . ( 2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2( 1), 351-398.
url: http://annals.aom.org/lookup/doi/10.1080/19416520802211628
[46] Marks M. A., Mathieu J. E., & Zaccaro S. J . ( 2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26( 3), 356-376.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785
[47] 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.
[48] Pelled L. H., Eisenhardt K. M., & Xin K. R . ( 1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44( 1), 1-28.
url: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2667029?origin=crossref
[49] Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., & Podsakoff N. P . ( 2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569.
url: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
[50] Smith A., Houghton S. M., Hood J. N., & Ryman J. A . ( 2006). Power relationships among top managers: Does top management team power distribution matter for organizational performance? Journal of Business Research, 59( 5), 622-629.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0148296305001670
[51] Sturm R. E., & Antonakis J. , ( 2015). Interpersonal power: A review, critique, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41( 1), 136-163.
[52] Tarakci M., Greer L. L & Groenen P. J. F. ., ( 2016). When does power disparity help or hurt group performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 101( 3), 415-429.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/apl0000056
[53] Tyler T. R . ( 2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.
url: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038
[54] Tyler T. R., & Lind E. A . ( 1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-191.
[55] Van der Vegt G., de Jong S. B., Bunderson J. S., & Molleman E . ( 2010). Power asymmetry and learning in teams: The moderating role of performance feedback. Organization Science, 21( 2), 347-361.
url: http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1090.0452
[56] van Dijke M., De Cremer D., & Mayer D. M . ( 2010). The role of authority power in explaining procedural fairness effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95( 3), 488-502.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0018921
[1] YIN Rong.  When will bystanders support collective actions? The roles of claim legitimacy, protest tactic and expectations of achieving goals[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(5): 558-571.
[2] YANG Linchuan, MA Hongyu, JIANG Hai, LIANG Juan, QI Ling.  When do procedural justice and outcome justice interact to influence legitimacy of authorities? The moderating effect of social class[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 980-994.
[3] ZHANG Shuwei.  Social justice, institutional trust and public cooperation intention[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(6): 794-813.
[4] SUI Yang;WANG Hui;YUE Yi-Ni;Fred Luthans. The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Follower Performance and Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital and the Moderating Role of Procedural Justice[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2012, 44(9): 1217-1230.
[5] Zhou Hao,Long Lirong. Relationship between Paternalistic Leadership and Organizational Justice[J]. , 2007, 39(05): 909-917.
[6] Wang Yan,Long-Lirong,Zhou Jie,Zu Wei. Withdrawal Behaviors Under Distributive Injustice:the Influence of Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice[J]. , 2007, 39(02): 335-342.
[7] Zhou Hao,Long Lirong,Wang Yan1,Wang Zhongjun,Wu Yi, Ke Shanyu. THE DIFFERENT OUTCOME OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE[J]. , 2005, 37(05): 687-693.
[8] Li Chaoping,Shi-kan. THE INFLUENCE OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE ON JOB BURNOUT[J]. , 2003, 35(05): 677-684.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech