Theory of Justice, OCB, and Individualism: Kyrgyz Citizens

Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 1

Theory of Justice, OCB, and Individualism: Kyrgyz Citizens

Mehmet Ferhat Özbek

Department of Human Resource Management, Faculty of Economics and Administrative

Sciences, Gümüşhane University, Gümüşhane, Turkey

E-Mail: [email protected]

Mohammad Asif Yoldash

Department of International Trade and Business Management, Faculty of Economics and

Administrative Sciences, Avrasya University, Trabzon, Turkey


Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Department of Management and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones College of Business,

Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 37132 USA


Paper Published in

Journal of Business Ethics DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2553-0

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-015-2553-0

Address all correspondence to Thomas Li-Ping Tang, Department of Management and Marketing,

Jennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

U.S.A. Tel: (615) 898-2005, Fax: (615) 898-5308, e-mail: [email protected] (JBE 2015 Justice

OCB Kyrgyzstan.doc: 2/12/2015).

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.springer.com/-/6/9aa3ef0da72e466ea615a9b302299e14




Abstract

Research suggests that organizational justice (procedural, distributive, and interactional justice)

has important impacts on work-related attitudes and behaviors, such as organizational citizenship

behavior (OCB). In this article, we explore the extent to which individualism moderates the

relationship between organizational justice and OCB (organizational obedience, participation, and

loyalty) among citizens in Kyrgyzstan. We make additional contributions to the literature because

we know very little about these constructs in this former Soviet Union country, Kyrgyzstan, an

under-researched and under-represented region of the world. Results of our data collected from

402 managers and employees in Kyrgyzstan offer the following new discoveries. All three justice

constructs are related to OCB. Individualism moderates only the distributive and interactive justice

to OCB relationships. We develop an intricate theory with provocative implications: Procedural

justice produces obedience. For “individualists”, interactional justice inspires loyalty and,

interestingly, distributive justice “can only buy” participation, but “can’t buy” loyalty. Therefore,

for individualists, interactional justice outweighs distributive justice for organizational

loyalty. Based on Kyrgyz citizens’ justice, OCB, and individualism, our theory reveals novel

insights regarding culture, money attitude, and intrinsic motivation and provides critical and

practical implications to the field of business ethics.

Keywords: Organizational justice, Organizational citizenship behavior, Individualism, Social

exchange, Money, Intrinsic motivation, Ethics, Former Soviet Union Country, Contextualization



For the past several decades, management scholars have expressed great interests in

exploring organizational justice (Brown et al. 2005; Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001; Colquitt et

al. 2001; Colquitt and Rodell 2011; Greenberg 1990b, 1993, 2005) as related to numerous work-

related outcome variables, such as: trust (Colquitt and Rodell, 2011), organizational commitment

(McFarlin and Sweeney 1992), and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Moorman 1991).

Organizational justice is important to the management literature because injustice has many “dark”

consequences and provides critical and practical implications for researchers in business ethics.

Feelings of pay dissatisfaction (injustice), for example, may cause individuals to steal in the name

of justice (Greenberg, 1993; Skarlicki and Folger 1997; Tang and Chiu 2003; Tang et al. 2011). In

addition, organization researchers have investigated three components of organizational justice—

procedural, distributive, and interactional justice—and OCB relationship in many parts of the

world and found that interactional justice was the strongest predictor of OCB in the US (Moorman

1991) and in Portugal (Rego and Cunha 2010), for example. Distributive justice and interactional

justice were the first and the second strongest predictors of OCB in China, respectively (Farh et

al. 1997). It appears that there are significant cross-cultural differences among these variables.

Despite of these studies on the relationships between organizational justice and OCB across

cultures, management researchers have neglected the role of contextual and cultural effects on

these variables. Contextualization helps scholars build a robust and powerful theory (Rousseau

and Fried 2001) and provide meaning that can only be understood in a specific contextual

environment (Johns 2006; Whetten 1989). According to Tsui (2007), any single-country study

must focus on the national context in the theory, methods, and research. Scholars add the effects


of contextual characteristics on attitudes and behaviors within the country to theorization. Yet very

few theorists explicitly focus on the issue of culture in studying organizational justice.

This study makes the following contributions. First, we explore the moderating role of

individualism as an individual-level cultural value in the organizational justice to OCB

relationship. In the literature, researchers have investigated various mediators of the

organizational justice to OCB relationship, e.g., trust in their supervisors (Konovsky and Pugh

1994), organizational support (Moorman et al. 1998), employee trust in organization and trust in

supervisor (Aryee et al. 2002), perceived union support (Aryee and Chay 2001), organizational

trust and organizational commitment (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al. 2013). Interestingly, we know

very little about moderators in studies of organizational justice and OCB, with only several

exceptions, e.g., equity sensitivity (Blakely et al. 2005), and organizational level (employee vs.

manager) (Begley et al. 2006). The relationship between organizational justice and employee

outcomes may vary according to people’s cultural orientations (Erdogan and Liden 2006; Fischer

and Smith 2006; Lam et al. 2002) and the relationship between justice and OCB may be

“moderated by variables such as equity sensitivity, individualism–collectivism (as an individual

value), and negative affectivity” (Rego and Cunha 2010, p. 425). We answer Rego and Cunha’s

(2010) call and treat “individualism” (Oyserman et al. 2002; Triandis et al. 1988) as a moderator

of the organizational justice to OCB relationship (Figure 1).

Second, we make additional theoretical contributions to the literature by exploring the

decisive moderating role of cultural values, specifically, in Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan is an

underdeveloped former Soviet Union socialist country (McCarthy and Puffer 2008). Practically,


there is little or no research on organizational justice and OCB in Kyrgyzstan.1 We suspect that

the lack of academic understanding of Western management literature, theories, and constructs;

standardized measurement instruments for empirical research; and data analysis strategies and

techniques may have contributed to the lack of academic research on justice and OCB in an under-

researched area of the world (Kirkman and Law 2005). In addition, due to these relatively new and

unfamiliar constructs such as organizational justice and OCB to the population, Kyrgyz people

may treated these topics as a taboo and evade these issues. Compared to the Western cultures,

citizens in Kyrgyzstan may also perceive relationships between these constructs quite differently

due to the distinct culture and economic context—with a former Soviet socialist legacy and the

newly reformed capitalist economy. This provides us with a very unique context to explore the

interesting relationships among these constructs.

------------Insert Figure 1 about here------------

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Organizational Justice

Organizational justice is employee’s fairness perceptions in organizations (Greenberg and

Cropanzano 2001). Most researchers have employed three sub-constructs of organizational

justice—procedural, distributive, and interactional justice—in empirical research (Colquitt 2001;

Cropanzano et al. 2001; Erdogan and Liden 2006; Konovsky 2000). Specifically, procedural justice

refers to the perceived fairness of “the means” used to achieve an end (Folger and Konovsky 1989;

Niehoff and Moorman 1993). When managers adhere to certain rules in their decision-making

processes, explain the reasons of their decisions logically (Niehoff and Moorman 1993), then,

1 We searched Web of Science, used the following two sets of terms—“Kyrgyzstan and

organizational justice” and “Kyrgyzstan and OCB”, and found no article published in the literature

regarding these variables, as of January 15, 2015.


procedural justice exists (Zapata-Phelan et al. 2009). Distributive justice refers to the perceived

fairness regarding the amounts of compensation employees receive (Alexander and Ruderman

1987) and the degree to which rewards are allocated in an equitable manner, i.e., “an end” (Ambrose

and Arnaud 2005). Interactional justice refers to the social exchange between employees and their

managers (Cropanzano et al. 2002) which can be further divided into interpersonal and

informational components (Colquitt et al. 2001). Interactional justice is related to employees’

feelings about how managers fairly treat their employees (Blakely et al. 2005). It represents an

interpersonal aspect of fairness during the enactment of decision-making procedures (Bies 2005)

and has two dimensions: explanations about decisions and sensitivity of relationships (Greenberg

1990a).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Since its original work of Smith et al. (1983), scholars have developed many different

forms of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Ang et al. 2003; Moorman 1991; Organ 1997;

Organ and Ryan 1995; Tang et al. 2008). For instance, Podsakoff et al. (1990) and Moorman

(1991) used altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness and civic virtue as forms of

OCB. To avoid the difficulties of deciding whether behaviors are classified as either in-role or

extra-role, Graham (1991) and Van Dyne et al. (1994) redefined OCB using “active citizenship

syndrome” (Inkeles 1969). According to this definition, OCB includes three sub-constructs—

organizational obedience, organizational participation, and organizational loyalty.

First, organizational obedience entails the recognition and acceptance of necessary,

desirable, and rational structures of rules and regulations in organizations with the following

indicators: exhibiting respect for organizational rules, completing given tasks by managers, acting

responsibly with respect to organizational resources, being punctual in attendance and task


completion, and becoming stewards of organizational resources (Graham 1991; Van Dyne et al.

1994). Second, organizational participation reflects involvement in organizational governance

such as attending non-required meetings, sharing informed thoughts and new ideas with others,

and staying informed about organizational affairs (Graham 1991). Finally, organizational loyalty

is related to employee’s identification with the organization, talking positively about it with others,

and demonstrating active behaviors that show pride with the organization and defend it (Niehoff

et al. 2001). We examine these concepts in Kyrgyzstan. Since it is not yet well-known by people

and researchers around the world, relatively speaking, in the management and business ethics

literature, we offer our brief introduction, below.

Kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyzstan, officially the Kyrgyz Republic, formerly known as Kirghizia, is a country

located in Central Asia with its capital in Bishkek—the largest city. Kyrgyz derived from the

Turkic word for “forty”—literally means “We are forty”, in reference to the forty clans of Manas.

It is a landlocked and dry country bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Uzbekistan to the west,

Tajikistan to the southwest, and China to the east. Historically, it has been located in a place of

great civilizations and culture routes from the Far East to Europe—a part of the “Silk Road”.

Kyrgyz is the official language, but Russian is still widely spoken. Less than 10% of the territory

is cultivated, and the rest is vast mountains. Its population in 2013 was estimated at 5.72 million,

Ethnic Kyrgyz make up the majority and 38% of country is living under poverty level (World

Bank 2013). The GDP per capita was USD$1,200 in 2013 (World Bank 2013). Kyrgyzstan’s

economy is based on agriculture products: cotton, tobacco, wool, and meat (Central Intelligence

Agency 2011). Regarding religion, the majority of them (64%) are nondenominational Muslims.


Kyrgyzstan gained her independence in 1991 after the breakdown of the former Soviet

Union. Kyrgyzstan embarked on a transitional path from a central, planned economy to a market

economy, has made a significant progress in carrying out market reforms, and faces many

transitional challenges—high and rapid inflation, high unemployment, difficult living conditions,

poverty, and corruption after the independence (Namazie and Sanfey 2001). Previous studies have

shown that there were cross-cultural differences between Kyrgyzstan and other countries with

regard to cultural values and leadership styles. For instance, Kyrgyzstan has a low level of long-

term orientation but a high level of consideration, compared to Russia (Ardichvili and Kuchinkev

2002) and have a high level of Protestant work ethic and a low level of hedonism, compared to

Australia (Bozkurt et al. 2010).

Social Exchange in the Relationship between Organizational Justice and OCB

Due to a fundamental human motivation—the need to belong (Baumeister and Leary

1995), people in all societies have created a desirable social exchange relationship between

individuals (Gouldner 1960). This exchange relationship is interdependent, depends on the actions

of another person (Blau 1964), and has the potential to generate obligations (Emerson 1976) and

high-quality relationships under certain circumstances. Among norms of exchange, reciprocity or

repayment in kind is probably the best known exchange rule (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005).

This bidirectional transaction implies that something has to be given and something returned, as a

consequence. Social exchange evolves in a slow process. Exchange partners need a little mutual

trust in the beginning of this process (Blau 1964). This trust turns to loyalty and commitment

between exchange partners over time (Gilbert and Tang 1998).

Social exchange requires a bidirectional transaction (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). It

means that if someone treats you well, you have to respond well to this treatment. Similarly, in


organizations, if managers treat employees fairly, employees display high levels of OCB in return,

reflecting a positive social exchange that emerges from this relationship (Organ 1988). The

establishment of social exchange requires making investment by one social exchange partner

(manager), constituting commitment to another party (Blau 1964). After this initial investment, the

other exchange partner (employee) starts to think positively and wants to reciprocate this

investment. In our theoretical model, we argue that organizational justice is an investment of this

social exchange process and creates the employees’ feeling of reciprocity. Social exchange evolves

around both parties—managers taking care of employees and employees reciprocating this positive

treatment (Fehr and Gächter 2000). Although it is a universal principle, some societies have a high

exchange orientation; other have a low exchange orientation. Not all individuals value reciprocity

to the same degree. In this study, we investigate the extent to which individualism moderates the

relationships between organizational justice (procedural, distributive, and interactional justice) and

OCB (obedience, participation, and loyalty) in Kyrgyzstan. Due to the unique cultural, economic,

legal, political, and social infrastructures, its history, and citizens, we explore these issues in more

detail and show how and why some specific contextual issues are related to these constructs for

citizens in Kyrgyzstan in the sections that follow.

Procedural justice and OCB in Kyrgyzstan

Procedural justice represents employees’ feelings of their control over the decision-

making process (Korsgaard et al. 1995). When procedural justice is high, it enhances employees’

trust in their managers and organizations and their OCB (Konovsky and Pugh 1994). In Western

societies, the effect of procedural justice on OCB has been well documented (Ehrhart 2004; Farh

et al. 1990; Moorman et al. 1993, 1998). However, this relationship may not exist exactly the same

in Kyrgyzstan, as it was a former Soviet country. We offer our rationale below.


Procedural justice focuses on the fairness of the rules and procedures (Alexander and

Ruderman 1987). It includes the consistent decision-making process which must be accurate,

correct, ethical, and free from bias (Leventhal et al. 1980). If the decision-making system is rigid

and authoritarian, then, people just simply obey the rules and do not have the opportunity to

question the rules or decision-making processes. In a society with a highly bureaucratic,

centralized, authoritarian, and autocratic Soviet management style (Ardichvili and Gasparishvili

2001; Kubicek 1998), citizens had to accept rules without asking any questions (Puffer 1996).

Similarly, managers make decisions without asking subordinates’ opinions and subordinates must

support managers’ decisions (Mayer et al. 2009; Purcell 1973). Today, the same authoritarian

management style exists with a strict hierarchy and bureaucracy in Kyrgyzstan (Kolpakov 2001).

In such a social structure, Kyrgyz people will simply follow the rules and obey the rules. They do

not appreciate procedural justice and do not reciprocate it to other aspects of OCB. Although

procedural justice may be related to all three aspects of OCB in Kyrgyzstan, we challenge the

assumption and propose that procedural justice is probably only related to obedience, but weakly

associated with participation and loyalty, and is the weakest one among all three constructs of

organizational justice, relatively speaking. We tentatively propose Hypothesis 1 below.

Hypothesis 1: Procedural justice is related to OCB in Kyrgyzstan.

Distributive Justice and OCB in Kyrgyzstan

The relationship between distributive justice and OCB deals with economic exchange and

extrinsic rewards in organizations (Konovsky and Pugh 1994). In an economic exchange

relationship in organizations, employees expect fair distributive justice (Adams 1965). Employees’

perceive distributive injustice leads to high levels of dissatisfaction and negative feelings toward

the organization which may cause many negative consequences. Therefore, it stands to reason that


under-rewarded individuals are less cooperative and less likely to obey the rules voluntarily than

fairly-rewarded employees (Harder 1992). In addition, low levels of justice perceptions provoke

deviant behaviors—causing them to steal in the name of justice (Chen et al. 2014; Cohen-Charash

and Spector 2001; Colquitt et al. 2001; Gino and Pierce 2009; Greenberg 1993; Tang and Sutarso

2013; Tang et al. 2011). Conversely, perceive distributive justice may enhance feels of satisfaction

which provoke increased efforts and high levels of OCB (Niehoff and Moorman 1993).

In a socialist system, distribution of income was mostly equal (Kornai 1992), relatively

speaking, compared to a capitalist society. Kyrgyz people lived in an egalitarian society during the

Soviet era (Kuehnast and Dudwick 2004). The collapse of the Soviet Union has caused rapid

deterioration of income equality (Kuehnast and Dudwick 2004; Ortiz and Cummins 2011). Since

its independence in 1991, Kyrgyzstan has experienced a rapid economic and social transformation

and income disparity. Although a small minority of people live in a wealthy life style, the majority

of society suffer from the deterioration of living conditions, causing discomfort for most Kyrgyz

people. According to a recent survey, 64% of people in Kyrgyzstan believe that some are getting

rich quickly by taking unfair advantages of the new opportunities in the society (Junisbai 2010).

Further, 66% of them believe that there are many poor people living in the country because of the

unfair economic systems. In addition, 80% of them supported the notion of fair distribution of

wealth in the society (Junisbai 2010). Since people do care about the fair distribution of income

and wealth, we argue that people in Kyrgyzstan have recognized the importance of distributive

justice of income in the society and in organizations. Because distributive justice is related to

allocation of external rewards, such as money in organizations, we argue that distributive justice

will be significantly related to OCB in Kyrgyzstan.

Hypothesis 2: Distributive justice is related to OCB in Kyrgyzstan.


Interactional Justice and OCB in Kyrgyzstan

Interactional justice is associated with the positive interpersonal relationships between

employees and managers (Folger and Bies 1989). Employees who have high positive social

relationships with their supervisors tend to show more extra-role behaviors and take on tasks that

require additional responsibility for their organizations (Cropanzano et al. 2002). Furthermore,

employees who have high perceived interactional justice respond positively toward fairness

perceptions, show more obedience, participation, and loyalty behaviors in organizations (e.g.,

Sousa and Vala 2002).

Interactional justice requires high quality relationships between managers and employees.

Quality of interpersonal relationships in social life is crucial in the Kyrgyz culture. Most people

want to maintain and protect positive social relationships with others (Kolpakov 2001). For

instance, people often give gifts to each other in order to build, maintain, and enhance positive

social relationship in daily working life. There is a well-known expression which highlights the

importance of interpersonal relationship in Kyrgyzstan: “Better a Hundred Friends Than a

Hundred Rubles” (Kuehnast and Dudwick 2004). One possible reason of this phenomenon is that

the level of power distance is low in Kyrgyzstan (Ardichvili and Kuchinkev 2002). Power distance

refers to the level of desirable inequality between individuals with different status (for instance

managers and employees have higher and lower status, respectively) as a part of social order

(Hofstede 1980). Improving the quality of interpersonal relationship between managers and

employees is easier in low power distance situations than in high power distance environment. In

a high power distance situation, employees become fully aware the power of managers and keep

high social distance between managers and employees in organizational settings (Farh et al. 2007).

However, in a low power distance situation, employees can express themselves, ask questions


about their jobs, and communicate with their managers more comfortably and freely (Begley et al.

2002). Furthermore, the norm of reciprocity works better for those in a contextual environment

with a low level of power distance (Farh et al. 2007). In Kyrgyzstan, a country with a low power

distance, individuals may improve and maintain high quality relationships with their managers.

Since Kyrgyz employees give high importance to managers who provide high interactional justice,

we argue that interactional justice is significantly related to OCB.

Hypothesis 3: Interactional justice is related to OCB in Kyrgyzstan.

Individualism in Kyrgyzstan

Individualism is the degrees to which individuals base their identities on personal interests

rather than on interests of the groups (i.e., personal vs. group goals) (Earley 1989; Kirkman et al.

2006; Oyserman et al. 2002). The individualism construct may include notions of personal privacy,

freedom, pleasure, individual rights, and autonomy (Oyserman et al. 2002). Individualistic people

want to be successful in competition and to be unique (Morris and Leung 2000). Despite some

countries are very individualistic such as the USA, Great Britain, and the Netherlands (Hofstede

1983); people in an individualistic (collectivist) country may have high collectivistic

(individualistic) values (Moorman and Blakely 1995), or vice versa. Thus, we may explore

individualism at the individual level.

Regarding to individualism, Ardichvili and Gasparishvili (2001) compared the socio-

cultural values in four former Soviet Union countries: Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and the

Kyrgyz Republic and found that Kyrgyzstan had the highest individualistic values among these

four countries. Kuchinke and Ardichvili (2002) compared work-related values of managers and

non-managerial employees in six countries, including four former Soviet countries, Germany, and

the USA. Managers in Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and the USA have higher individualistic values than


Germany, Georgia, and Kazakhstan. Kyrgyz employees have the second highest individualist

values, just behind the US. These two studies disclose that the level of individualism in Kyrgyzstan

is higher than other former Soviet Countries, hinting the importance of studying this distinctive

construct further.

Individualism as a Moderator of the Organizational Justice to OCB Relationship

We pick individualism as a moderator of the relationship between organizational justice

and OCB for the following reasons. First, collectivists show greater tolerances to injustice; but

individualists do not (Erdogan and Liden 2006). Similarly, individualists’ perceptions of

organizational justice may lead to effort dedicated to their organizations, but collectivists don’t

(Wagner 1995). Therefore, we assert that the relationship between organizational justice and OCB

can be different for people with high or low individualistic values. Following Hypothesis 1 that

procedural justice is the weakest predictor of OCB in Kyrgyzstan, we further posit that

individualism is not a moderator in procedural justice to OCB relationship in this country.

Individualism as a Moderator of the Distributive Justice to OCB Relationship

Individualistic employees prefer equity in organization, whereas collectivistic ones prefer

equality (James 1993; Tang 1996). Arrangement of work schedules, allocation of workload, and

level of payment are more important to highly individualistic employees than to collectivistic ones.

There are two possible explanations of this phenomenon. First, individualists are highly calculative

in their relationships (Sullivan et al. 2003), built and maintained their relationships with others

based on their cost-benefit analysis, care about the allocation of rewards, and are sensitive to

manager’s treatments; but collectivists do not (Triandis 1995). Second, norm of reciprocity may

work better for individualistic employees than for collectivistic ones (Erdogan and Liden 2006).

Following the norm of reciprocity, people with high individualistic values and high distributive


justice display positive response, such as OCB in general (organizational obedience, participation,

and loyalty), than those without.

We “challenge” this general assumption and provide rationale as follows. Considering

organizational loyalty, evidence suggests that the opposite may be true. People in individualistic

societies do not stress loyalty (Shane 1992). Cultures with high affluence and wealth have high

individualistic values (Georgas et al. 2004). Individualism is negatively correlated with loyalty

(Straughan and Albers-Miller 2001). But, collectivism is positively related to loyalty (Moorman

and Blakely 1995). Interestingly, loyalty and work ethic are significantly correlated among

Canadian employees (Ali and Azim 1995).

Recent empirical laboratory experiments suggest that thinking about money activates

feelings of self-sufficiency, makes individuals keep larger physical distance from others, work

alone without asking for help from others, become less helpful to others, and donate less money

to charity (Vohs et al. 2006). When primed with different notions of money, people become more

individualistic, independent, and less loyal to others. Further, online shoppers are more

individualistic than those who have not shopped online (Frost et al. 2010). This implies that online

shoppers may avoid interpersonal interaction, make financial decisions alone, and purchase

product and services in private, at ones’ own convenience, at any time, and place.

Self-determination theory argues that intrinsic goals satisfy individuals’ innate

psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness and hence bring fulfillment and

pleasure; whereas extrinsic goals are related to rewards or approval from others, and therefore are

less likely to bring happiness (Ryan and Deci 2000). “Excessive concentration on external rewards

can distract people from intrinsic endeavors and interfere with personal integration and

actualization” (Kasser and Ryan 1993, p. 410). Extrinsic reward undermines intrinsic motivation


(Herzberg 1968). On the other hand, a good match between personal values (Protestant Work

Ethic) and the nature of the task (work vs. leisure) enhances intrinsic motivation (Tang and

Baumeister 1984). In addition, recent research reveals that high income improves life satisfaction,

but not happiness or emotional well-being (Kahneman and Deaton 2010).

In the literature of materialism (Belk 1988; Tang et al. 2014), young students with high

materialistic values have lower school performance (Goldberg et al. 2003), lower intrinsic mastery

goals, but higher extrinsic performance goals. Materialism predicts Hong Kong students’ decreases

in mastery goals, increases in performance goals, and deterioration of school performance, a year

later (Ku et al. 2012). Materialistic students have low learning motivation and learning outcome

because they only want to hear and memorize words to pass an exam. Tang’s (2014) Monetary

Intelligence Theory (MIT) suggests that university students with high Monetary Intelligence—low

love of money motive—tend to have low interests in making money, but high interests in not only

making ethical decisions but also achieving academic excellence (high objective course grade in a

business class). Thus, focusing on money has many negative consequences.

In summary, there are several theoretically interesting phenomena in this study. First,

citizens in Kyrgyzstan have a higher level of individualism than other former Soviet countries

(Ardichvili and Gasparishvili 2001). Second, citizens in Kyrgyzstan are not rich financially (GDP

per capita = USD$1,200 in 2013), compared to those in highly individualistic countries (e.g., the

USA and UK). Thus, scholars may expect them to behave like collectivists. Third, collectivists

(not individualists) have high organizational loyalty (Moorman and Blakely 1995). Fourth, with

high distributive justice, people in organizations are satisfied with their financial needs. High

financial rewards leads to a sense of self-sufficiency. Fifth, clearly, financial reward undermines

intrinsic motivation. With sufficient money, people become “independent” and focus on


themselves and consumption, rather than others, leading to the notion that they do not need others’

help and assistance to survive (Vohs et al. 2006), a harbinger for “low” loyalty. Finally, although

money can make your life easier, but money can’t buy you love, or “loyalty” (intrinsic value). We

strongly argue: Loyalty is different from the other two OCB sub-constructs. We offer the following

provocative arguments: Organizational obedience, participation, and loyalty are not created equal.

The distributive justice to organizational obedience and participation relationship will be stronger

for those with higher individualistic values. On the other hand, the distributive justice to

organizational loyalty relationship will be stronger for people with lower individualistic values.

Hypothesis 4a: Individualism moderates the positive relationship between distributive

justice and OCB (organizational obedience and organizational participation) such that

this relationship is stronger for individuals with higher individualism than those with lower

individualism.

Hypothesis 4b: Individualism moderates the positive relationship between distributive

justice and OCB (organizational loyalty) such that this relationship is stronger for

individuals with lower individualism than those with higher individualism.

Individualism as a Moderator of the Interactional Justice to OCB Relationship

Research shows that individualistic people are more sensitive to social justice than their

collectivist counterparts (Earley and Gibson 1998). Interactional justice, a social aspect of justice

in organizations (Folger and Bies 1989), is more important to individuals with high individualism

than to those with high collectivism. While collectivists try to maintain relationships at any cost,

individualists seek justice and don’t tolerate injustice in interpersonal conflict situations (Ohbuchi

et al. 1999). When collectivists perceive a low level of organizational justice, they tend to maintain

their relationship with the organizations, whereas individualists do not (Erdogan and Liden 2006).


We propose that the relationship between interactional justice and OCB (organizational obedience,

loyalty, and participation) will be stronger for individuals with higher individualistic values.

Hypothesis 5: Individualism moderates the positive relationship between interactional

justice and OCB, such that this relationship is stronger for individuals with higher

individualistic values than those with lower individualistic values.

METHODS

Sample and Procedure

We collected data from employees in two organizations in the food industry in Jalalabad

City, Kyrgyzstan. Jalalabad is the third largest city in Kyrgyzstan and is best known for its mineral

springs in the surrounding areas. It is the economic and political center of southwestern

Kyrgyzstan. These two companies produce alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages and drinks,

baked goods, jam, and related products and have approximately 300 to 499 employees,

respectively. One author of this paper visited the key managers of these companies, obtained the

cooperation and permission to conduct this study, and randomly distributed a total of 600

questionnaires to participants (300/company). Participants completed questionnaires voluntarily

during work hours and/or during breaks and returned them in enclosed envelopes to the key contact

individuals in respective organizations. A week later, researchers collected the completed

questionnaires (N = 402, response rate = 67%). We included first line managers (12%) and non-

managerial employees (e.g., accountants, salespeople, and production employees, 88%).

Regarding gender, 222 of participants (55%) were men and 180 (45%) were women. Participants’

age varied between 16 and 61 (M = 27.7) with work experience ranging from 1 to 35 years (M =

4.2 years). Furthermore, 47 % of them had a high school education and the majority (53%) had a

college degree. Their annual income was between US$400 and US$4,200 (M = US$1,544.55).


Measures

The original English measures were translated into the Kyrgyz and Russian languages, the

most widely used languages in Kyrgyzstan. The translations were performed using the translation-

back-translation procedure (Brislin 1970). We used a small focus group with Kyrgyz and Russian

graduate students to check the meaning and clarity of items and revised these measures,

accordingly.

Organizational Justice. We used the procedural, distributive, and interactional justice

measures developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) using a five-point Likert scale with strongly

agree (1) and strongly disagree (5) as scale anchors. Cronbach’s alpha (α) for these three scales in

the present study was .66, .75, and .78 respectively (Table 1). We measured procedural justice

using six items. Examples are “To make job decisions, my general manager collects accurate and

complete information,” and “My general manager makes sure that all employee concerns are heard

before job decisions are made.” We measured distributive justice using five items. Example items

are as follows: “I think that my level of pay is fair” and “Overall, the rewards I receive here are

quite fair.” Interactional justice was measured using nine items: Here are some sample items:

“When decisions are made about my job, the general manager treats me with kindness and

consideration” and “When decisions are made about my job, the general manager shows concern

for my rights as an employee.”

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). We used the measure originally developed

by Van Dyne et al. (1994) and adopted by Bienstock et al. (2003). It is a five-point Likert scale

with strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5) as scale anchors. OCB consist of three 5-item sub-

dimensions: organizational obedience (α = .71), organizational participation (α = .70), and

organizational loyalty (α = .74). Example items include—organizational obedience: “I come to


work on time” and “I follow the organization’s work rules and instructions”; organizational

participation: “I share ideas for improvements with coworkers at this organization” and “I help

other coworkers think for themselves”; and organizational loyalty: “I talk about our organization

favorably to other people” and “I defend this organization when other employees criticize it.”

Individualism. We used the Triandis and Gelfand’s (1998) individualism scale. This scale

consists of eight items (α = .74). Here are two sample items: “Competition is the law of nature”

and “I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others.”

Control Variables. Several variables may have an impact on OCB. We controlled these

variables in our data analyses: i.e., gender, age, tenure, education, position, and annual income.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the mean, standard deviation, correlation, and reliability (Cronbach’s

alpha) of our major variables. Procedural, distributive, and interactional justice were significantly

and positively correlated with three types of OCB—organizational obedience, participation, and

loyalty. Individualism was also positively correlated with three types of OCB. Participants’

average income (USD$1,544.55) was slightly higher than the GDP per capita (USD$1,200).

------------Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here------------

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Common Method Variance (CMV)

Following Vandenberg and Lance’s (2000) recommendation, we tested factor structure of

our measurement models. We used Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation (RMSEA) to evaluate model fit. CFI value greater than 0.90 and RMSEA less than

0.05 are desirable indications of an excellent fit (Hu and Bentler 1999). Our confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA) results of major variables: (1) organizational justice (χ2 = 264.9, df = 137, p = .01,


χ2/df = 1.93, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .04), (2) OCB (χ2 = 177.8, df = 77, p = .01, χ2/df = 2.30, CFI =

.94, RMSEA = .05), and (3) individualism (χ2 = 29.8, df = 14, p = .01, χ2/df = 2.12, CFI = .97,

RMSEA = .05) suggested excellent fit between our measurement model and data.

Common method variance (CMV) may be an issue when data are collected from a single

source at one point in time (Podsakoff et al. 2003). First, we conducted Harman’s one-factor test

(Podsakoff and Organ 1986) by entering all the variables into an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

using the unrotated factor solution. If a single factor emerges, then a substantial amount of CMV

is present. Our EFA results produced twelve (12) factors; the total amount of variance explained

was 60%. All three types of OCB (organizational obedience, participation, and loyalty) accounted

for 27 % of the variance, followed by all types of organizational justice (18%) and individualism

(7%). A single factor did not emerge and a general factor did not explain a majority of the variance,

suggesting that CMV was not an issue in our study.

Second, the measurement model with the addition of an unmeasured latent CMV factor (χ2

= 1,185.3, df = 796, p = .01, χ2/df = 1.49, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .04) did not improve the fit over

our measurement model without a CMV factor (χ2 = 1231.2, df = 797, p = .01, χ2/df = 1.54, CFI

= .91, RMSEA = .04), i.e., ΔCFI = .01, ΔRMSEA =.00, respectively (Cheung and Rensvold 2002;

Tang et al. 2006). We concluded that common method bias is not a serious concern in our study.

These findings offer us great confidence in testing our hypotheses using these constructs in

subsequent steps.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis

To test our hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses and considered three

types of OCB (organizational obedience, participation, and loyalty) as dependent variables. To

avoid multicollinearity concerns, we centered predictors around zero and multiplied them to form


the interaction terms (Aiken & West 1991). In step 1, we entered age, education, tenure, annual

income, position, and gender as our control variables. In step 2, we added procedural justice,

distributive justice, interactional justice, and individualism as independent variables. Finally, in

step 3, we included three interactions (procedural justice x individualism, distributive justice x

individualism, and interactional justice x individualism) in the model (Table 2). We also tested the

statistical significance of the simple slopes to examine the moderation effect.

Main Effect of Organizational Justice on OCB

Table 2 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analyses. Hypothesis 1 stated that

procedural justice is related to OCB. Results showed that procedural justice was positively related

to organizational obedience (β = .15, p < .05), but was not significantly related to organizational

participation (β = .10, p .05) and organizational loyalty (β = .07, p .05). Since we found only

one significant effect, our results partially supported Hypothesis 1. Distributive justice was

positively and significantly related to organizational obedience (β = .13, p < .05), organizational

participation (β = .19, p < .01), and organizational loyalty (β = .11, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis

2. Finally, interactional justice was positively and significantly related to organizational obedience

(β = .15, p < .05), organizational participation (β = .20, p < .01), and organizational loyalty (β =

.21, p < .01). Hypothesis 3 was supported. Comparing all the results above, the strongest

relationship was between interactional justice and OCB and the weakest was between distributive

justice and OCB.

Individualism Moderates the Distributive Justice to OCB Relationship

First, the interaction effect between distributive justice and individualism on organizational

participation was significant (β = .14, p < .05) (Table 2 and Figure 2). Following suggestions in

the literature (Aiken and West, 1991), results of simple slope analyses suggested that there was a


significant and positive relationship between distributive justice and organizational participation

(β = .355, t = 5.02, p < .01) for those higher in individualism, but a negative and non-significant

relationship for those lower in individualism (β = -.157, t = -.922, p > .05) partially supporting

Hypothesis 4a. Second, we found a significant interaction effect between distributive justice and

individualism on organizational loyalty (β = -.17, p < .01, see Table 2 and Figure 3). Simple slope

analyses suggested that there was a significant positive relationship between distributive justice

and organizational loyalty for those lower in individualism (β = .556, t = 2.06, p < .05), but a

negative and non-significant relationship for those higher in individualism (β = -.128, t = -.122, p

> .05), supporting Hypothesis 4b.

------------Insert Figures 2, 3, and 4 about here------------

Individualism Moderates the Interactional Justice to OCB Relationship

The interaction effect between interactional justice and individualism on organizational

loyalty was significant (β = .15, p < .05, see Figure 4). Simple slope analyses suggested that for

those higher in individualism, there was a significant positive relationship between interactional

justice and organizational loyalty (β = .442, t = 6.794, p < .01). This relationship was negative but

non-significant for those with lower individualism (β = -.054, t = -.375, p > .05). Hence, Hypothesis

5 was partially supported.

DISCUSSION

Theoretical Contributions

This study treats individualism as a moderator of the relationships between organizational

justice (procedural, distributive, and interactional justice) and organizational citizenship behavior

(OCB, organizational obedience, participation, and loyalty). We highlight the importance of using

contextualization to explain the social phenomena in Kyrgyzstan—a former Soviet country. First,


we focus on the organizational justice to OCB relationship. Among the three sub-constructs of

OCB, procedural justice is significantly related to only organizational obedience, but not related

to organizational participation and loyalty, showing the weakest relationship with OCB.

Procedural justice is closely related to employee’s evaluation of organizations or systems (Folger

and Konovsky 1989). Since few people question the procedural justice (“the means”)2 in decision

making during Soviet Union era, naturally, they follow the tradition (accepting the means) and

display organizational obedience in this context. Kyrgyz employees have not yet recognized the

importance of procedural justice in the newly established market economy and reciprocated

positively it regarding organizational participation and organizational loyalty.

Both distributive justice and interactional justice are significantly associated with OCB—

organizational obedience, participation, and loyalty. Distributive justice reflects perceived fairness

regarding the amounts of compensation employees receive, “an end” (Ambrose and Arnaud 2005).

Interactional justice refers to the social exchange between employees and their managers—the

human interaction aspect of fairness (Bies 2005). Among three justice sub-constructs, interactional

justice has the strongest relations related to OCB, relatively speaking. With a cultural pattern of a

pre-modern society, social interactions are prominent for the majority of people. With high

interactional justice, employees feel obligated to reciprocate it in organizations (Blau 1964). It

appears that these employees focus less on “the means” but more on “an end” and human

interaction aspects of justice.

Clearly, our results regarding the relationships between organizational justice and OCB are

quite different from that of Western societies. For instance, Moorman (1991) didn’t find a

significant relationship between distributive justice and OCB in the US. However, we do in

2 Considering from the means (procedural justice) to an end (distributive justice).


Kyrgyzstan. There are similarities between distributive justice and interactional justice and

OCB in Kyrgyzstan and in China (Farh et al. 1997). The relationship between procedural

justice and OCB was weak in Kyrgyzstan and China. It is plausible that Chinese people, like

Kyrgyz citizens, also accept authority without questioning, due to Confucianism (Ralston et al.

1993). Both our study in Kyrgyzstan and Rego and Cunha’s (2010) study in Portugal disclose

the importance of interactional justice to OCB relationships. The relationship between

distributive justice and OCB is weak for the US and Portugal, but strong for China and Kyrgyzstan,

relatively speaking. Further, the 2013 GDP per capita for the US, Portugal, China, and Kyrgyzstan

was USD$53.042, $21,733.1, $6,807.4, and $1,200, respectively (World Bank 2013). It is

conceivable that people in low GDP countries (China and Kyrgyzstan) strongly reciprocate

distributive justice, but those in high GDP countries (the US and Portugal) don’t. More research is

needed in this direction. Focusing on the interface between context and theory involves not only

contributions of theory and contributions to theory but also theories in context and theories of

context (Whetten 2009).

Second, our primary contribution highlights individualism, an individual level cultural

variable, as a moderator of the relationship between organizational justice and OCB. On the one

hand, distributive justice has a positive and significant relationship with organizational

participation for employees high in individualism, indirectly supporting Ramamoorthy and

Flood’s (2002) findings—individualism moderates the relationship between distributive justice

and extra effort.

On the other hand, we also find a positive and significant relationship between distributive

justice and organizational loyalty for employees with low individualism, but a non-significant

relationship for employees with high individualism. Our results indirectly support the literature:


Chang and Hahn (2006) found that in Korea, a collectivist country, commitment performance

appraisal practice moderates the pay‐for‐performance to employees’ perception of distributive

justice. Collectivistic people also tend to display more loyalty behavior than individualists. In

addition, collectivism was positively and significantly related to organizational loyalty (Moorman

and Blakely 1995). Furthermore, interactional justice has a positive and significant relationship

with organizational loyalty for employees with high individualism, but a negative and non-

significant findings for those with low individualism.

It should be noted that our cross-sectional data do not provide strong “cause-and-effect”

relationship among constructs in this study. We tentatively use the verbs to show potential

consequences, below. Taken together, we offer the following theoretical insights: Procedural

justice produces obedience only and has no impact on participation and loyalty. Interestingly,

collectivists with high distributive justice and individualists with high interactional justice exhibit

high loyalty. For individualists, distributive justice can only buy “participation”, but can’t buy

“loyalty”. However, interactional justice can inspire “loyalty”. For individualists, interactional

justice outweighs distributive justice for organizational loyalty. We greatly enrich the different

undermining power of extrinsic reward on people’s intrinsic motivation, self-determination (Ryan

and Deci 2000), or OCB—in our present study. All three justice sub-constructs create difference

consequences for OCB’s sub-constructs. It is clear that the three aspects of justice and OCB are

“not” created equal in Kyrgyzstan.

Empirical and Managerial Implications

This study contributes to the emerging literature of organizational behavior in Kyrgyzstan.

We test our theoretical model using managers and non-managerial employees in a new context

and explore the boundaries of these constructs. Our discoveries offer several important practical


implications. Even with a small population, Kyrgyzstan has a high out-migration rate of workers,

therefore, finding a loyal, obedient, and participatory workforce is extremely difficult in this

country (Abazov 1999). Leaders at the country level must establish financial, legal, political, and

social infrastructures, promote economic and financial development, and increase standard of

living and wealth for the population in the society to avoid brain drain. Executives and managers

in organizations must satisfy all stakeholders and treat them fairly in all three aspects of justice.

Even if they do, employees may react to three aspects of justice differently because individualism

is a moderator of the justice to OCB relationships. Managers must understand each individual

employee’s individualistic and collectivistic values and pay attention to their interactional and

distributive justice, in particular, in their daily interactions.

Procedural justice has the weakest but interactional justice has the strongest relationship

with OCB. These findings reflect not only the culture and the human interactions in organizations

and the society but also the importance and satisfaction of human needs in the geographic region

(Tang and West 1997; Tang and Ibrahim 1998). First, Kyrgyzstan became an independent country

in 1991. After the breakdown of the former Soviet Union, we suspect that authoritarian,

bureaucratic, centralized, and autocratic Soviet management style (Ardichvili and Gasparishvili

2001; Kubicek 1998; Puffer 1996) still exists today, almost a quarter of a century later. Economic,

legal, political, and social infrastructures help establish procedural justice perceptions. The long

arm of the culture, Soviet language, and the way people do business in the society shape citizens’

thinking and behavioral patterns. We illustrate empirically that with an extremely weak system of

procedural justice, the relationship between procedural justice and OCB also becomes fragile,

indeed.


Second, in Saudi Arabia, for example, when the physical environment is harsh and survival

in vast desert is difficult, most people value traditional, out-directed (tribalistic, conformist, socio-

centric) values that are more prevalent than modern, inner-directed (egocentric, manipulative, and

existential) values (Ali and Al-Shakhis 1985; Tang and Ibrahim 1998). The available resources,

geographical region, and physical environment have a lot of impact on its culture. In a mountainous

region with limited resources and less than 10% of the territory cultivated, people’s welfare, fate,

and survival still depend on the actions of that network as a whole and people in the immediate

environment, in particular. These aforementioned traditional values, in the Middle East, in general,

are very much applicable to citizens in Kyrgyzstan located in Central Asia. The expression—

“Better a Hundred Friends Than a Hundred Rubles” (Kuehnast and Dudwick 2004)—truly reflects

this society’s mentality and re-iterates the importance of interpersonal relations and interactional

justice in Kyrgyzstan.

Our discussions above are all related to the construct of “money”. As mentioned, when

people think about money, they experience the sensation of self-sufficiency, want to keep away

from others, work independently, and become less helpful to others. Exposure to clean money

evokes associations to reciprocity and fair exchange, whereas dirty money induces thoughts of

exploitation and illicit gain (Yang et al. 2013). Interestingly, giving money away enhances

happiness (Dunn et al. 2008) and provides meaning in life (Baumeister et al. 2013). Clearly, it

takes time for employees to perform various forms of OCB in organizations and helping others.

Given the fact that “time is money” in modern societies (Devoe and Pfeffer 2007), it is reasonable

to imply that helping others in organizations and performing OCB cost both time and money—

indirectly. Intrinsic and altruistic values greatly enhance meaning in lives and create the


endowment effect (Kahneman 2013). Dale Carnegie stated: “Remember happiness doesn’t depend

upon who you are or what you have; it depends solely on what you think”.

On the other hand, in a materialistic society, money and materialism become more and

more important, for the past several decades (Lemrová et al. 2014; Tang et al. 2014). With more

money, people think about money more often than before. Although we do not believe that this is

the case for people in Kyrgyzstan, currently, because the GDP per capita is low and materialism

is also low, relatively speaking, the notion of money exists in people’s minds, clearly. Further,

self-determination theory suggests that extrinsic reward undermines intrinsic motivation (Deci and

Ryan 2000; Tang and Baumeister 1984). Therefore, interactional justice and OCB may still exist

bountifully in the society. 3

In a cross-cultural study involving Egypt, Poland, Taiwan, and the US, Tang et al. (2008)

explored a model of helping behaviors involving both a direct path and an indirect path. The direct

path is significant, suggesting that the Good Samaritan Effect exists: Intrinsic helping motives are

strongly related actual helping behavior. On the other hand, the indirect path (love of money

extrinsic helping motives helping behaviors) shows some interesting discoveries. For the first

part of the indirect path, affective monetary motive, the love-of-money motive in lay persons’

terms (Tang and Chiu 2003), enhances extrinsic motives for helping others. This path is significant

for all countries, except Egypt. For the second part of the path, it is significant for people in Poland

only. Thus, the whole indirect path was significant and positive for Poles. These findings suggest

3 Our findings signify splendid wisdom across cultures and religions—love one another: Tell them to do good, to be

rich in good works, to be generous, ready to share (The Holy Bible: 1 Timothy 6: 18). The trustworthy man will be

richly blessed (Proverbs 28: 20). Heavenly practice enriches prudent diligence; glorious virtue sustains prosperous

affluence (Chinese Proverbs: 天道酬勤, 厚德载物). We shall give abundance to those who do good (The Holy Quran:

2: 58).


that the love of money may cause individuals “to help” in one culture (Poland), but “not to help”

in others, reflecting cultural differences.

Limitations and future research

Our cross-sectional data from two organizations located in Kyrgyzstan don’t provide strong

“cause-and-effect” relationship. Our sample size is reasonable (N = 402) but relatively small.

Researchers need to explore other samples to enhance the generalizability of the present findings

to other populations, countries, or cultures and incorporate additional constructs and variables in

future studies. It is also important to examine these relationships using longitudinal data and from

multiple sources. In addition, another limitation of our study is that we rely on self-reported

measure for all variables. Therefore, there are possible differences between actual OCB and self-

reported OCB. Researchers may enhance our understanding of the organizational justice to OCB

relationship using other individual-level moderators and mediators. For instance, scholars may

investigate power distance and traditionality (Farh et al. 2007) as moderators, or trust (Aryee et al.

2002) and leader member exchange (LMX) (Gu et al. 2015; Lee 2000) as mediators in Ex-Soviet

countries.

Research suggests that the meaning of money is in the eye of the beholder and serves as a

frame of reference in making financial decisions (Tang 1992). Moreover, poverty and corruption

co-exist. It is not money, but the love of money that causes people to fall into temptation and

engage in unethical behaviors, corruption, and dishonesty (Chen et al. 2014; Tang and Chiu 2003;

Tang et al. 2011). Specifically, Monetary Intelligence Theory (MIT) asserts that individuals

monitor their monetary motive, behavior, and cognition; evaluate risk and uncertainty; and

strategically select options to achieve their financial goals and ultimate prosperity—long-lasting

peace, love, and happiness. On the bright side, individuals with low love-of-money motive are


satisfied with their pay and life and have lower concerns for making money, but higher interests

in making ethical decisions. On the dark side, love-of-money motive predicts dishonesty in

multiple-panel studies. Recent literature on money, the love of money, and Monetary Intelligence

provides additional, critical, and practical implications to the business ethics and ethical decision

making literature (Chen et al. 2014; Gu et al. 2015; Lemrová et al. 2014; Liu and Tang 2011;

Sardžoska and Tang 2014; Tang 2007, 2014; Tang and Chen 2008; Tang and Sutarso 2013; Tang

et al. 2014; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara and Suárez-Acosta 2014). OCB involves both time and

money. Since giving money away leads to happiness and finding meaning in lives, future

researchers may explore the relationships between OCB, happiness, meaningful lives, and ethical

decision making. This special, fertile, and prolific field not only deserves researchers’ attention

but also provides rich and practical implications for scholars in business ethics.

Conclusion

In this study, we investigate the relationships between three types of organizational justice

perceptions (procedural, distributive, and interactional justice) and three categories of OCB

(organizational obedience, participation, and loyalty) in Kyrgyzstan and treat individualism as a

moderator. Interactional justice and distributive justice are significantly related to organizational

obedience, participation, and loyalty. However, procedural justice is the only significant associated

with organizational obedience. In addition, individualism moderates not only the relationship

between distributive justice and organizational participation and loyalty but also the relationship

between interactional justice and organizational loyalty. Based on citizens in a unique culture

located in Central Asia, we demonstrate the intricate relationships among constructs which provide

novel theoretical and practical implications: Procedural justice “produces” obedience. For

individualists, distributive justice “can only buy” participation, but “can’t buy” loyalty. However,


interactional justice can “inspire” individualists’ loyalty. We challenge the assumptions, make our

theory of justice, OCB, and individualism in Kyrgyzstan interesting, offer original insights

regarding culture, money, motivation, and provide important, practical implications to business

ethics.


References

Abazov R. (1999). Economic migration in Post-Soviet Central Asia: The case of Kyrgyzstan. Post-

Communist Economies, 11(2), 237-252.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,

2, 267-299.

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Sage Publications.

Alexander, S., Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in

organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177–198.

Ali, A., & Al-Shakhis, M. (1985). Managerial value systems for working in Saudi Arabia: An

empirical investigation. Group & Organization Studies, 10, 135-151.

Ali, A. J., & Azim, A. (1995). Work-ethic and loyalty in Canada. Journal of Social Psychology,

135(1), 31-37.

Ambrose, M. L., Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually

distinct? In J. Greenberg J. A. Colquitt, (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp.

59-84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Begley, T. M. (2003). The employment relationships of foreign workers

versus local employees: A field study of organizational justice, job satisfaction,

performance, and OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 561-583.

Ardichvili, A., Gasparishvili, A. (2001). Socio-cultural values, internal work culture and

leadership styles in four Post-Communist Countries Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan and the

Kyrgyz Republic. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(2), 227-242.

Ardichvili, A., Kuchinke K. P. (2002). Leadership styles and cultural values among managers

and subordinates: A comparative study of four countries of the former Soviet Union,

Germany, and the US. Human Resource Development International, 5(1), 99–117.

Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between

organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267-285.

Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W. (2001). Workplace justice, citizenship behavior and turnover intentions

in a union context: examining the mediating role of perceived union support and union

instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 154-160.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments

as a fundamental human-motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. L., & Garbinsky, E. N. (2013). Some key differences

between a happy life and a meaningful life. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 505-516.

Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Fang, Y., Li, J. (2002). Power distance as a moderator of the relationship

between justice and employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese employees. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 692-711.

Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Hui, C. (2006). Organizational level as a moderator of the relationship

between justice perceptions and work-related reactions. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 27(6), 705-721.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-

168.


Bienstock, C. C., DeMoranville, C. W., Smith, R. K. (2003). Organizational citizenship behavior

and service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(4), 357-78.

Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J.

Greenberg J. A. Colquitt, (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice, 85-112. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity

sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship

behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259-273.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.

Bozkurt, V, Bayram, N., Furnham, A., Dawes, G. (2010). The Protestant work ethic and

hedonism among Kyrgyz, Turkish and Australian college students. Drustvena Istrazivanja:

Journal for General Social Issues, 19(4-5), 749-769.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning

perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134.

Central Intelligence Agency (2011). The World Factbook,

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kg.html

Chang, E., & Hahn, J. (2006). Does pay-for-performance enhance perceived distributive justice

for collectivistic employees? Personnel Review, 35(4), 397-412.

Chen, J. Q., Tang, T. L. P., & Tang, N. Y. (2014). Temptation, monetary intelligence (love of

money), and environmental context on unethical intentions and cheating. Journal of

Business Ethics, 123(2), 197-219.

Cheung, G. W., Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing

measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.

Cohen-Charash, Y., Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a

measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E. Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at

the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.

Colquitt, J. A., Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis

integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1183-

1206.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness

heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.

Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.

Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish

procedural from interactional justice. Group and Organization Management, 27(3), 324-

351.

Deci. E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the

self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

http://hrcak.srce.hr/drustvena-istrazivanja

http://hrcak.srce.hr/drustvena-istrazivanja

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kg.html


Devoe, S. E., & Pfeffer, J. (2007). When time is money: The effect of hourly payment on

evaluation of time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 1-

13.

Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. L. (2008). Spending money on others promotes

happiness. Science, 319(5870), 1687-1688.

Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the

People's Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(4), 565-581.

Earley, P. C., Gibson, C. B. (1998). Taking stock in our progress on individualism-collectivism:

100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24(3), 265-304.

Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit‐level

organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61-94.

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-362.

Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C. (2006). Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational

justice: Implications for leader-member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27(1), 1-17.

Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and

organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly,

42(3), 421-444.

Farh, J. L., Hackett R. D., Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of

perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing

the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3),

715-729.

Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship

behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of

Management, 16(4), 705-721.

Fehr, E., Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. The Journal

of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159-181.

Fischer, R., Smith, P. B. (2006). Who cares about justice? The moderating effect of values on

the link between organizational justice and work behaviour. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 55(4), 541-562.

Folger, R. Bies, R. J. (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 79-90.

Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions

to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130.

Frost, D., Goode, S., & Hart, D. (2010). Individualist and collectivist factors affecting online

repurchase intentions. Internet Research, 20(1), 6-28.

Georgas, J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Berry, J. W. (2004). The ecocultural framework, ecosocial

indices, and psychological variables in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 35(1), 74-96.

Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. P. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents. Public

Personnel Management, 27(3), 321-338.

Gino, F., Pierce, L. (2009). Dishonesty in the name of equity. Psychological Science, 20(9),

1153-1160.

Goldberg, M. E., Gorn, G. J., Peracchio, L. A., & Bamossy, G. (2003). Understanding materialism

among youth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 278–288.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological

http://apps.isiknowledge.com/WoS/CIW.cgi?SID=4CMGcEnCA@omAJMda7o&Func=Abstract&doc=1/22


Review, 25(2), 161-178.

Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities

and Rights Journal, 4(4), 249-270.

Greenberg, J. (1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity. The hidden cost of

pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561-568.

Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of

Management, 16(2), 399-432.

Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators

of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 54(1), 81-103.

Greenberg, J. (2005). Organizational justice, ethics, and corporate social responsibility. In

Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Managing behavior in organizations (pp. 34-71). Pearson Education,

Prentice Hall.

Greenberg, J. S., Cropanzano, R. (Eds.). (2001). Advances in organizational justice. Stanford

University Press.

Gu, Q. X., Tang, T. L. P., & Jiang, W. (2015). Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity?

Employee identification with leader and leader-member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese

context. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 513-529.

Harder J. W. (1992). Play for pay: Effects of inequity in a pay-for-performance context.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), 321-335.

Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motive employees: Harvard Business Review,

46(1), 53-62.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.

London: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of

International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89.

Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Inkeles, A. (1969). Participant citizenship in six developing countries. American Political Science

Review, 63(4), 1120-1141.

James, K. (1993). The social context of organizational justice: Cultural, intergroup, and structural

effects on justice behaviors and perceptions. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the

workplace: Approaching fairness in HRM (pp. 21-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of

Management Review, 31(2), 386-408.

Junisbai, A. K. (2010). Understanding Economic Justice Attitudes in Two Countries: Kazakhstan

and Kyrgyzstan. Social Forces, 88(4), 1677-1702.

Kahneman, D (2013). Think, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional

well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America, 107(38), 16489-16493.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American-dream: Correlates of financial

success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2),

410-422.

Kirkman, B., Law, K. (2005). International management research in AMJ: Our past, present,


and future. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 377–386.

Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of Culture’s

Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values

framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285-320.

Kolpakov, A. (2001). Managing diversity in Kyrgyzstan. Indiana University, Published by School

of Public and Environmental Affairs, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.

Konovsky, M. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations.

Journal of Management, 26(3), 489–511.

Konovsky, M. A., Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of

Management Journal, 37(3), 656-669.

Kornai, J. (1992). The socialist system: The political economy of communism. Oxford University

Press, New York.

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(1), 60-84.

Ku, L., Dittmar, H., & Banerjee, R. (2012). Are materialistic teenagers less motivated to learn?

Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence from the United Kingdom and Hong Kong.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 74-86.

Kubicek, P. (1998). Authoritarianism in Central Asia: Curse or cure? Third World Quarterly,

19(1), 29-43.

Kuchinke, K. P., Ardichvili, A. (2002). Work-related values of managers and subordinates in

manufacturing companies in Germany, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Russia,

and the US. Journal of Transnational Management Development, 7(1), 3-25.

Kuehnast, K. R., Dudwick, N. (2004). Better a Hundred Friends Than a Hundred Rubles?

Social Networks in Transition-the Kyrgyz Republic (39). World Bank Publications.

Lam, S. S., Schaubroeck, J., Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational justice and

employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

23(1), 1-18.

Lee, H. R. (2000). An empirical study of organizational justice as a mediator of the relationships

among leader-member exchange and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

turnover intentions in the lodging industry (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University).

Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Grohmann, A., Kauffeld, S. (2013). Promoting multifoci citizenship

behavior: Time-lagged effects of procedural justice, trust, and commitment. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 62(3), 454–485.

Lemrová, S., Reiterová, E., Fatěnová, R., Lemr, K., & Tang, T. L. P. (2014). Money is power:

Monetary intelligence—love of money and temptation of materialism among Czech

university students. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(2), 329-348.

Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation

preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Liu, B. C., & Tang, T. L. P. (2011). Does the Love of Money Moderate the Relationship between

Public Service Motivation and Job Satisfaction? The Case of Chinese Professionals in the

Public Sector. Public Administration Review, 71(5), 718-727.


Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvaor, R. (2009). How low does

ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1-13.

McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M. (2008). Interpreting the ethicality of corporate governance

decisions in Russia: Utilizing integrative social contracts theory to evaluate the relevance

of agency theory norms. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 11-31.

McFarlin, D. B., Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Research notes. Distributive and procedural justice as

predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of

management Journal, 35(3), 626-637.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational

citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of

Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-855.

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism‐collectivism as an individual difference

predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

16(2), 127-142.

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support

mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship

behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 351-357.

Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P. Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and

organizational citizenship behaviors: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3),

209-225.

Morris, M., Leung, K. (2000). Justice for all? Progress in research on cultural variation in the

psychology of distributive and procedural justice. Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 49(1), 100-132.

Namazie, C., Sanfey, P. (2001). Happiness in transition: the case of Kyrgyzstan. Review of

Development Economics, 5(3), 392-405.

Niehoff, B. P., Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between

methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management

Journal, 36(3), 527-556.

Niehoff, B. P., Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G., Fuller, J. (2001). The influence of empowerment

and job enrichment on employee loyalty in a downsizing environment. Group and

Organization Management, 26(1), 93-113.

Ohbuchi, K. I., Fukushima, O., Tedeschi, J. T. (1999). Cultural values in conflict management

goal orientation, goal attainment, and tactical decision. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 30(1), 51-71.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington

Books, Lexington, MA.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human

Performance, 10(2), 85–97.

Organ, D. W., Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-802.

Ortiz, I., Cummins, M. (2011). Global inequality: Beyond the bottom billion–A rapid review of

income distribution in 141 countries. UNICEF, New York.


Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and

collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological

Bulletin, 128(1), 3-72.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B, Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases

in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader

behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational

citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.

Podsakoff, P. M., Organ D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and

prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.

Puffer, S. (1996). Leadership in a Russian context. In Business and Management in Russia, (pp.

38-56), Edward Elgar Publishing.

Purcell, S. K. (1973). Decision-making in an authoritarian regime: Theoretical implications from

a Mexican case study. World Politics, 26(1), 28-54.

Ralston, D. A., Gustafson, D. J., Terpstra, R. H., Holt, D. H., Cheung, F., & Ribbens, B. A.

(1993). The impact of managerial values on decision-making behaviour: A comparison of

the United States and Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 10(1), 21-37.

Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C. (2002). Employee attitudes and behavioral intentions: A test of

the main and moderating effects of individualism-collectivism orientations. Human

Relations, 55(9), 1071-1096.

Rego, A. Cunha, M. P. (2010). Organizational justice and citizenship behaviors: A study in the

Portuguese cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(3), 404-430.

Rousseau, D. M., Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational

research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1), 1-13.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Sardžoska, E. G., & Tang, T. L. P. (2014). Monetary Intelligence: Money attitudes—unethical

intentions, intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, and coping strategies across public and

private sectors in Macedonia. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2197-

5

Shane, S. A. (1992). Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business

Venturing, 7(1), 29-46.

Straughan, R. D., & Albers-Miller, N. D. (2001). An international investigation of cultural and

demographic effects on domestic retail loyalty. International Marketing Review, 18(5),

521-541.

Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The role of distributive,

procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434-443.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature

and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 655–663.

Sousa, F. H., Vala, J. (2002). Relational justice in organizations: The group-value model and

support for change. Social Justice Research, 15(2), 99-121.

Sullivan, D. M., Mitchell, M. S., Uhl-Bien, M. (2003). The new conduct of business: How LMX

can help capitalize on cultural diversity. Dealing with Diversity, Information Age

Publishing: Greenwich, CT, 183-218.


Tang, T. L. P. (1992). The meaning of money revisited. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2),

197-202.

Tang, T. L. P. (1996). Pay differentials as a function of rater's sex, money ethic, and job

incumbent's sex: A test of the Matthew Effect. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 127-

144.

Tang, T. L. P. (2007). Income and quality of life: Does the love of money make a

difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 72(4), 375-393.

Tang, T. L. P. (2014). Theory of Monetary Intelligence: Money attitudes—religious values,

making money, making ethical decisions, and making the grade. Journal of Business

Ethics. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2411-5.

Tang, T. L. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Effects of personal values, perceived surveillance, and

task labels on task preference: The ideology of turning play into work. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 69: 99-105.

Tang, T. L. P., & Chen, Y. J. (2008). Intelligence vs. wisdom: The love of money,

Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior across college major and gender. Journal of

Business Ethics, 82(1), 1-26.

Tang, T. L. P., & Chiu, R. K. (2003). Income, money ethic, pay satisfaction, commitment, and

unethical behavior: Is the love of money the root of evil for Hong Kong

employees? Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1), 13-30.

Tang, T. L. P., & Ibrahim, A. H. S. (1998). Importance of human needs during retrospective

peacetime and the Persian Gulf War: Mideastern employees. International Journal of

Stress Management, 5(1), 25-37.

Tang, T. L. P., & Liu, H. (2012). Love of money and unethical behavior intention: Does an

authentic supervisor’s personal integrity and character (ASPIRE) make a difference?

Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 295-312.

Tang, T. L. P., Luna-Arocas, R., Quintanilla Pardo, I., & Tang, T. L. N. (2014). Materialism and

the bright and dark sides of the financial dream in Spain: The positive role of money

attitudes—The Matthew Effect. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 63(3), 480-

508.

Tang, T. L. P., & Sutarso, T. (2013). Falling or not falling into temptation? Multiple faces of

temptation, monetary intelligence, and unethical intentions across gender. Journal of

Business Ethics, 116(3), 529–552.

Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Akande, A., Allen, M. W., Alzubaidi, A. S., Ansari, M. A., … &

Vlerick, P. (2006). The love of money and pay level satisfaction: Measurement and

functional equivalence in 29 geographical entities around the world. Management and

Organization Review, 2(3), 423-452.

Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Ansari, M. A., Lim, V. K. G., Teo, T. S. H., Arias-Galicai, F., …

Manganelli, A. M. (2011). The love of money is the root of all evil: Pay satisfaction and

CPI as moderators. In Leslie A. Toombs (Ed.), Best Paper Proceedings of the 2011 Annual

Meeting of the Academy of Management. San Antonio, TX.

http://people.uleth.ca/~mahfooz.ansari/AoM%2011%20Best%20Paper-LOM.pdf

DOI: 10.5465/AMBPP.2011.65869480

Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Davis, G. M. T., Dolinski, D., Ibrahim, A. H. S., & Wagner, S. L.

(2008). To help or not to help? The Good Samaritan Effect and the love of money on

helping behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(4), 865-887.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=49&did=1155038&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1199908273&clientId=15756



http://apps.isiknowledge.com/WoS/CIW.cgi?SID=1FNgDBkindfpanG9279&Func=Abstract&doc=1/1

http://apps.isiknowledge.com/WoS/CIW.cgi?SID=1FNgDBkindfpanG9279&Func=Abstract&doc=1/1

javascript:genAccWindow('%2Fpqdweb%3Findex%3D54%26did%3D1152677%26SrchMode%3D1%26sid%3D1%26Fmt%3D18%26VInst%3DPROD%26VType%3DPQD%26RQT%3D309%26VName%3DPQD%26TS%3D1199908750%26clientId%3D15756');

javascript:genAccWindow('%2Fpqdweb%3Findex%3D54%26did%3D1152677%26SrchMode%3D1%26sid%3D1%26Fmt%3D18%26VInst%3DPROD%26VType%3DPQD%26RQT%3D309%26VName%3DPQD%26TS%3D1199908750%26clientId%3D15756');








http://people.uleth.ca/~mahfooz.ansari/AoM%2011%20Best%20Paper-LOM.pdf


Tang, T. L. P., & West, W. B. (1997). The importance of human needs during peacetime,

retrospective peacetime, and the Persian Gulf War. International Journal of Stress

Management, 4(1), 47-62.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and

collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self ingroup relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323-338.

Triandis, H. C. Gelfand, M. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical

individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118–

28.

Tsui, A. S. (2007). From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the

academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1353-1364.

Vandenberg, R. J., Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance

literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational

research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior:

construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,

37(4), 765-802.

Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. (2006). The psychological consequences of money.

Science, 314: 1154-1156.

Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups.

Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152-172.

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management

Review, 14(4), 490-495.

Whetten, D. A. (2009). An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the

study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 29-55.

World Bank Data (2013). Kyrgyz Republic.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD/countries/KG-7E-

XN?display=graph

Yang, Q., Wu, X. C., Zhou, X. Y., Mead, N. L., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2013).

Diverging effects of clean versus dirty money on attitudes, values, and interpersonal

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 473-489.

Zapata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Livingston, B. (2009). Procedural justice,

interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 93-105.

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P., Suárez-Acosta, M. A. (2014). Employees’ reactions to peers’

unfair treatment by supervisors: The role of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics,

122(4), 537-549.



http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD/countries/KG-7E-XN?display=graph

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD/countries/KG-7E-XN?display=graph


TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alpha, and Correlations among Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Age 27.70 8.30

2. Education 15.08 2.00 .09

3. Tenure 4.20 4.40 .60** .07

4. Annual Income

(US$) 11,544.55 656.39 .61** .04 .45**

5. Position .12 .33 .41** -.02 .33** .69**

6. Gender .55 .49 .08 .01 -.05 .12* .04

7. Procedural Justice 3.66 .74 .24** -.06 .24** .22** .12* .04 (.66)

8. Distributive Justice 3.61 .83 .23** -.04 .21** .22** .08 .05 .51** (.75)

9. Interactional justice 3.67 .70 .23** -.10* .23** .24** .14** .04 .52** .49** (.78)

10. Individualism 3.65 .69 .16** -.10 .15** .20** .06 .07 .37** .43** .47** (.74)

11. Organizational

Obedience 3.83 .74 .25** .06 .14** .21** .07 .05 .36** .39** .37** .33** (.71)

12. Organizational

Participation 3.72 .75 .19** -.00 .18** .20** .05 -.07 .35** .39** .38** .25** .41** (.70)

13. Organizational

Loyalty 3.76 .80 .27** -.11* .20** .27** .11* .01 .36** .42** .45** .43** .49** .39** (.74)

Note. N = 402. Cronbach’s alpha is presented in parentheses. Gender: Male = 1, Female = 0. Position: Manager = 1, Non-manager =

0. Education: Expressed in years.

*p < .05

**p < .01


TABLE 2

Regression Analyses Results

Organizational Obedience Organizational Participation Organizational Loyalty

Step and Variable 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

1. Age .16* .13 .13 .05 .01 .01 .11 .09 .08

Education .03 .08 .08 -.03 .02 .02 -.14** -.08 -.07

Tenure .00 -.07 -.07 .09 .02 .02 .08 .01 .01

Annual income .24** .13 .13 .27** .17* .17* .27** .15* .15*

Position -.14* -.09 -.09 -.19** -.14* -.14* -.16* -.09 -.08

Gender -.02 -.03 -.03 -.11* -.12* -.12* -.04 -.05 -.05

2. Procedural Justice .15* .15* .10 .10 .07 .07

Distributive Justice .13* .13* .19** .20** .11* .11

Interactional Justice .15* .16* .20** .19** .21** .23**

Individualism .09 .06 .01 .05 .18** .15**

3. Procedural Justice x Individualism -.05 .05 -.03

Distributive Justice x Individualism -.10 .14* -.17**

Interactional Justice x Individualism .09 -.09 .15*

R² .09** .22** .23** .07** .22** .23** .11** .29** .30**

Note: N = 402. Standardized regression coefficients.

*p < .05; **p < .01


FIGURE 1

Our Theoretical Model

FIGURE 2

Interaction Effect of Distributive Justice and Individualism on Organizational Participation

Organizational

Justice

Procedural Justice

Distributive Justice

Interactional Justice

Organizational Citizenship

Behavior (OCB)

Obedience

Participation

Loyalty

Individualism


FIGURE 3

Interaction Effect of Distributive Justice and Individualism on Organizational Loyalty

FIGURE 4

Interaction Effect of Interactional Justice and Individualism on Organizational Loyalty

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Low Interactional

Justice

High Interactional

Justice

Org

an

iza

tio

na

l L

oy

alt

y

Low

IndividualismHigh

Individualism

Theory of Justice, OCB, and Individualism: Kyrgyz Citizens

Documents

Transcript of Theory of Justice, OCB, and Individualism: Kyrgyz Citizens