Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1998 by the Am n Psychological Association, Inc.

1998, Vol. 83, No. 5, 731-744 0021-9010/98/$3.00

What Motivates Fairness? The Role of Subordinate Assertive Behavior

on Managers' Interactional Fairness

M. Audrey Korsgaard Loriann Roberson

University of South Carolina Arizona State University

R. Douglas Rymph
University of South Carolina

This study investigated the proposition that a subordinate's communication style can
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

affect a manager's fairness behavior during decision making and, consequently, can affect
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the subordinate's attitudes toward the decision, manager, and organization. Two studies
were conducted to test these propositions in the context of performance appraisal deci-
sions. First, a laboratory study demonstrated that appraisers engage in more interactionally
fair behavior when interacting with an assertive appraisee than with an unassertive ap-
praisee. Second, a quasiexperimental field design showed that training employees on
assertiveness, when coupled with self-appraisal, is associated with positive attitudes to-
ward the appraisal and trust in the manager. Implications for understanding the causes of
fair behavior and improving the fairness of decisions are discussed.

Fairness in decision making has a powerful impact on
a wide variety of human resource-related decisions such
as those pertaining to layoffs, staffing, pay raises, drug
testing, and discipline (Cropanzano, 1993; Folger & Ko-
novsky, 1989; Gilliland, 1994; Konovsky & Cropanzano,
1991; Miceli, Jung, Near, & Greenberger, 1991). Until
recently, most of the research in this area has focused on
two main categories of fairness: distributive justice, the
fairness of resource allocation decisions, and procedural
justice, the fairness of the process of making those deci-
sions (Lind & Tyler, 1988). In general, research indicates
that the fair allocation of resources and the fair structuring
of procedures are each uniquely important predictors of
perceived fairness, acceptance of decisions, and attitudes
M. Audrey Korsgaard and R. Douglas Rymph, The Darla
Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina; Lori-
ann Roberson, College of Business Administration, Arizona
State University.
We thank M. Susan Taylor, William Click, and Donna Blan-
cero for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.
Portions of this article were presented at the 11 th Annual Con-
ference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, April 1996, San Diego, California; the Australian Industrial/
Organizational Psychology Conference, June 1997, Melbourne,
Australia; and the New Zealand Industrial/Organizational Psy-
chology Conference, July 1997, Auckland, New Zealand.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to M. Audrey Korsgaard, The Darla Moore School of Business,
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208.
Electronic mail may be sent to korsgaar@darla.badm.sc.edu.
toward management and the organizations (Cropanzano,
1993; Greenberg, 1993; Lind & Tyler, 1988).
Procedural justice research has focused largely on indi-
viduals' reactions to formal policies and procedures. More
recently, a subset of procedural justice has emerged called
interactional justice (Folger & Bies, 1989; Greenberg,
1993; Tyler & Bies, 1990), which refers to the interper-
sonal side of decision making, specifically to the fairness
of the decision maker's behavior in the process of decision
making. Decision makers behave in an interactionally fair
manner when they treat those affected by the decision
properly and enact the decision policy or procedure prop-
erly (Folger & Bies, 1989; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Proper
interpersonal treatment is defined as (a) being truthful in
communication and treating people with courtesy and (b)
showing respect. Proper enactment of procedures is de-
fined by five behaviors: (a) adequate consideration of the
employee's input, (b) suppression of personal biases, (c)
consistent application of decision-making criteria, (d)
timely feedback, and (e) justification for the decision.
These interactional factors play an important role in af-
fecting employees' perceptions of fairness, acceptance of
decisions, and organizational attitudes (Konovsky & Cro-
panzano, 1991; Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995;
Schaubroeck, May, & Brown, 1994).
The findings concerning interactional justice pose a
unique problem, for, although some degree of distributive
and procedural justice can be ensured through the design
of equitable organizational policies and procedures, it is
more difficult to control the fair enactment of decision-

731
 732 KORSGAARD, ROBERSON, AND RYMPH
making procedures. Because organizations typically do
not monitor or hold managers accountable for their inter-
actions with all employees, managers may adhere to poli-
cies without engaging in interactionally fair behavior. That
is, managers may obey the letter but not the spirit of the
law (Folger & Bies, 1989). In fact, research suggests
that, despite the instrumentality of acting fair (Greenberg,
1990), decision makers are often unwilling to behave in
a fair manner, particularly when the decision outcome
is unfavorable to the employee (Folger, 1993; Folger &
Skarlicki, 1998). Although studies show that managers
can be successfully trained to act in an interactionally fair
manner (Korsgaard et al., 1995; Taylor, Tracy, Renard,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Harrison, & Carroll, 1995), little is known about what
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
motivates interactionally fair behavior (Folger & Skar-
licki, 1998).
The purpose of this investigation was to examine one
factor that might affect the extent to which managers en-
gage in interactionally fair behavior: the communication
style of their subordinates. We focus on what Greenberg
(1993) described as the informational component of inter-
actional justice, which pertains to the exchange of infor-
mation (e.g., providing justification). Specifically, we ex-
amine two aspects of interactional justiceconsideration
and justificationthat are repeatedly mentioned as criti-
cal for perceptions of fairness. Consideration refers to the
extent to which the decision maker acknowledges and
considers the views and concerns of others affected by
the decision (Tyler, 1987). Justification refers to the extent
to which an adequate explanation or account for the deci-
sion is provided (Shapiro, 1993). Because information
exchange is a two-way process, it is possible that the
subordinate's communication style can influence the ex-
tent to which the manager engages in these behaviors.
Therefore, we propose that an assertive communication
style on the part of the employee will evoke greater inter-
actionally fair behavior on the part of the manager. To test
this proposition, we conducted two studies in the context
of the performance appraisal process. The first, a labora-
tory' experiment, examined the impact of assertiveness
on appraisers' levels of interactionally fair behavior. The
second, a quasiexperimental field study, examined the im-
pact of training subordinates to communicate assertively
on perceptions of fair behavior and related organizational
attitudes. In the following paragraphs, we briefly review
the literature that forms the basis of our propositions.
Organizational Justice in Performance
Appraisal Systems
Although justice concepts have been applied to a wide
variety of organizational decisions, one area that has re-
ceived considerable attention is performance appraisal
systems (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Folger, Konovsky, &
Cropanzano, 1992; Folger & Lewis, 1993; Greenberg,
1986, 1987; Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995; Taylor et al.,
1995). In this context, distributive justice has been opera-
tionalized as the fairness or favorableness of the final
evaluation and of any associated monetary reward (Fol-
ger & Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1986). Numerous pro-
cedural factors that contribute to procedural justice, such
as voice, adequate forewarning, and opportunity to appeal,
have been found to have a positive impact on employee
attitudes when applied to the performance appraisal pro-
cess (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Korsgaard & Roberson,
1995; Taylor et al., 1995).
Interactional factors, particularly consideration and jus-
tification, are also recognized as an important component
of creating perceptions of fairness in the performance
appraisal system. Folger et al. (1992) included these two
factors in their due process model of performance ap-
praisal. Specifically, they argued that two-way communi-
cation between a manager and a subordinate and the man-
ager's willingness to discuss how ratings were made in-
fluence the perception of fairness. Taylor et al. (1995)
tested and found support for this model using a compre-
hensive intervention that included training managers to
increase levels of consideration and justification.
Although consideration and justification are identified
consistently as important interactional factors, they have
not been studied in isolation. Yet the repeated indications
of the importance of these two factors warrant their sepa-
rate examination (Folger et al., 1992). Moreover, these
two factors concern the exchange of information and, as
such, are apt to be influenced by communication pro-
cesses. For these reasons, the present research focuses on
consideration and justification. As interactional factors,
these are behaviors largely within the control and discre-
tion of the manager. The issue then arises of what moti-
vates managers to engage in these behaviors.
Assertive Communication and Fair Behavior
Although, as noted, there is evidence that direct inter-
ventions on decision makers' behavior can successfully
promote interactional justice (Greenberg, 1994; Kors-
gaard et al., 1995; Schaubroeck et al., 1994; Taylor et al.,
1995), managers may be unwilling to engage in interac-
tionally fair behavior. Researchers are just beginning to
understand why individuals may be less than fair. Folger
(1993) suggested several possible mechanisms linked to
the potential psychological costs of interactionally fair
behavior for the decision maker. Specifically, Folger ar-
gued that decision makers might believe that acting in a
fair manner will result in a loss of control and influence
or in a loss of status and credibility. As a result, decision
makers attempt to distance themselves from those affected
by the decisions. Folger and Skarlicki (1998) supported
 WHAT MOTIVATES FAIRNESS?
these assertions, finding that when decision makers felt
culpable for the decision outcome, they preferred to mini-
mize their interactions with the individuals affected by
the decision. Thus, managers may show less consideration
of subordinates' input and provide inadequate justifica-
tion. For example, to avoid conflict with subordinates,
managers may attempt to control their interactions with
employees by holding a brief, one-sided performance re-
view meeting.
Although Folger's (1993; see also Folger & Skarlicki,
1998) work helps to understand why managers are reluc-
tant to engage in interactionally fair behavior, little is
known of the contextual factors that might encourage such
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
behavior. One potential contextual factor is assertive com-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
munication on the part of the subordinate. Several dimen-
sions of assertive communication have been identified
(Cooley & Hollandsworth, 1977; Rakos, 1986). First, an
assertive style involves stating one's own position in a
confident manner while avoiding phrases that devalue the
message (Hayes, 1991; Rakos, 1986). In the appraisal
interview, an assertive subordinate would give clear, suc-
cinct statements of his or her opinions and perceptions,
even when such views run counter to that of the manager.
A second component of assertiveness involves using non-
verbal behavior that signals to others that they should pay
attention to the speaker's point of view (Hayes, 1991;
Rakos, 1986). Studies have found that, in general, effec-
tive assertiveness includes the use of an intermediate vol-
ume and firmness of speech, eye contact, and an involved
body posture (Rakos, 1986). A third aspect of assert-
iveness is attentive listening to the statements of others
(Bolton, 1979; Zuker, 1984). In the appraisal interview,
this would involve the use of active listening techniques
such as paraphrasing and asking questions of the manager
so that his or her point of view is clarified and explained.
We propose that these actions, when taken by subordi-
nates, are likely to evoke greater consideration and justi-
fication from superiors because this style actively seeks
such responses. An employee who communicates assert-
ively would be more likely to ensure that the manager
hears and acknowledges that employee's opinions. Em-
ployee use of attentive listening, another component of
assertiveness, should result in greater explanation of the
basis of the evaluation.
Although much of the literature on assertiveness has
focused on the consequences of assertiveness for the as-
serter, such as self-esteem and job satisfaction (e.g., Al-
berti & Emmons, 1970; Rabin & Zelner, 1992), evidence
indicates it can change the other's responses. Studies have
found that assertiveness is an effective influence tactic and
enhances interpersonal effectiveness. In general, assertive
responses evoke more rapid short-term compliance from
others than does the use of passive or aggressive styles
(Hollandsworth & Cooley, 1978; Hull & Schroeder,
733
1979). In addition, the use of assertiveness appears to
increase knowledge and understanding between the parti-
cipants. Studies of couples in therapeutic settings have
reported increases in trust, empathy, and intimacy in rela-
tionships from the use of assertiveness (Epstein & Jack-
son, 1978; Gordon & Waldo, 1984).
In sum, we propose that one factor that determines
an appraiser's propensity to engage in interactionally fair
behavior is the extent to which the appraisee communi-
cates assertively. Specifically, when an individual commu-
nicates assertively, by seeking to ensure that the appraiser
understands his or her point of view and asking for expla-
nations from the appraiser, the appraiser is more likely to
exhibit interactionally fair behavior in the form of consid-
eration of the individual's input and justification of the
decision. We thus propose the following:
Hypothesis I (Study 1): The level of assertive communi-
cation on the part of the appraisee will have a positive
impact on the level of interactionally fair behavior exhibited
by the appraiser.
Study 1
Method
Design and participants. Because, to date, the impact of an
individual's communication style on the fair behavior of another
individual has not been examined, we conducted an initial exper-
iment to test this causal link. In this study, we systematically
varied the communication style of a confederate and examined
its impact on the behavior of participants. A two-group, single-
factor experimental design was used, with assertiveness (high
vs. low) as the independent variable. Participants were recruited
from an undergraduate management course at a large southeast-
ern university. Forty-two undergraduates (16 female, 26 male)
volunteered to participate in this experiment in exchange for
extra credit.
Procedure. Participants were told that they would be in an
experiment with another participant recruited from another col-
lege in the university. The other participant was actually a con-
federate (female undergraduate). On arriving for the experi-
ment, the purpose and procedure were explained to the partici-
pant and confederate, and each signed a consent form. The
participant and confederate were told they were participating in
a study about giving and receiving feedback in which one of
them would perform a task and the other would take the role
of the appraiser. The participant and confederate then drew lots,
which were rigged such that the participant was always given
the role of appraiser. The experimenter then escorted the confed-
erate to another room to perform the task.
While the confederate was ostensibly completing the task,
the participant received oral and written instructions on evaluat-
ing the confederate's performance. The confederate's task was
a critical thinking skills test composed of four sections: making
inferences, recognizing assumptions, deducing, and evaluating
arguments. The participant was given a key to the test and a
rating form in which the participant rated each of the four skills
 734 KORSGAARD, ROBERSON, AND RYMPH

on a scale of 1 (poor) to 15 (exceptional). For each skill section 1 did pretty good, but at least not really bad, anyway. But
of the test, there were five multiple-choice questions, worth a if that's what you t h o u g h t . . . I mean I guess if you think
total of 10 points, and one short answer, worth 5 points. The so. You know, it was sort of hard but, I tried really hard.
rating for each skill was determined by totaling the points for Well, I guess . . . um yeah . . . all right, whatever.
that skill section. Identical versions of the completed test were
Measures. The measure of interactionally fair behavior was
given to all participants to control the range of ratings. Perfor-
derived from audiotaped statements of the participant that were
mance on the multiple-choice items was poor: Only one or two
transcribed by a typist who was unaware of the hypotheses.
items in each section were correct. The short-answer responses
Participants' responses to the eight scripted comments were
were designed to be consistent in quality and length, and partici-
each coded by a trained rater who was unaware of condition
pants exercised judgment in their evaluations of the short answer.
and hypotheses (participants' responses were unidentified and
Therefore, we were able to control the range of ratings while
randomly sorted). Two dimensions of interactionally fair behav-
still leading participants to feel personally responsible for the
ior were assessed: consideration, the extent to which the partici-
evaluations.
pant acknowledged and showed consideration of the confeder-
The participant was left alone to review the key while the
ate's views, and justification, the extent to which the participant
confederate completed the task. The experimenter returned 10
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

provided justification for his or her decision. Using pilot data,

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

min later and gave the participant the confederate's answers to

two 8-point (0-7) behaviorally anchored rating scales were
evaluate. When the participant completed the evaluation, the
constructed to rate consideration and justification, respectively.
experimenter took the participant to the confederate's room and
Using pilot data, the rater was trained along with a second rater,
instructed the participant to review the evaluation with the con-
who was used as a reliability check. Based on a sample of 80
federate. This discussion was audiorecorded (with the informed
pilot statements, reliability was estimated, using an interclass
consent of the participant). After the discussion, the confederate
correlation, at .76. Ratings were averaged to form an overall
was escorted to another room to seemingly complete a second
index of interactionally fair behavior.
version of the test. The participant then completed a brief ques-
As a supplement to the content coding of the participants'
tionnaire, was debriefed, and was dismissed.
statements, we also administered a self-report scale of partici-
Manipulation of asseniveness. Assertiveness was manipu-
pants' interactionally fair behavior using seven 5-point Likert-
lated by having the confederate follow one of two scripts varying
type items. Example statements are "I explained the reasons
in level of assertiveness. Both scripts followed the same struc-
for the evaluation I gave the student" (justification) and "I
ture. First, as instructed, the participant reviewed the four rat-
listened carefully to the student's opinions on her performance''
ings. The confederate followed by making eight comments (two
(consideration). These items were averaged to form an overall
comments for each of the four ratings), each time waiting for
index (a = .89). This self-rated measure of interactionally fair
a response from the participant. The length of the confederate
behavior was moderately correlated with the content-coded
statements was approximately equal in the number of words and
measure (r = .28, p < .05).
syllables, and the general tone of the statements was parallel.
The manipulation check for the assertiveness manipulation
As noted earlier, assertive communication is characterized by
was assessed by eight 5-point Likert-type items measuring the
several behaviors, including stating one's own position in a
participants' perceptions of aspects of the confederate's assert-
confident manner (Hayes, 1991; Rakos, 1986); using active lis-
ive verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Example statements are
tening techniques, such as paraphrasing and asking questions of
"The student was confident in expressing her opinions" and
clarification (Bolton, 1979; Zucker, 1984); and using nonverbal
"The student looked me in the eye while she was talking." The
behaviors such as eye contact and an involved body posture
coefficient alpha of these eight items was .85.
(Hayes, 1991; Rakos, 1986). A high assertive communication
script was developed based on this definition in which the con-
federate directly stated opinions of his or her performance, cited Results
specific examples to support those opinions, asked the partici-
pant questions of clarification, and engaged in high eye contact A t test revealed a significant difference between condi-
and forward body posture. A sample response in the high-assert- tions in the manipulation check, f(40) = 5.17, p < .05.
ive condition is as follows: On average, participants in the low-assertiveness condi-
tion rated the confederate's assertiveness lower than did
I'm not sure I agree. How did you come up with that? I participants in the high-assertiveness condition, (low as-
thought I did pretty good. The question on arctic survival
sertiveness: M = 2.86, SD = 0.53; high-assertiveness: M
was ambiguous. And the other onethere wasn't much
information on Mr. Smith, so it was hard to come up with = 3.98,50 = 0.84).
explanations, "feu know what I'm saying? A t test was used to test the effects of the assertiveness
manipulation on ratings of interactionally fair behavior,
Similarly, a low-assertive script was developed based on the revealing a significant difference between conditions,
obverse of this definition: The confederate made vague or non-
?(40) = 4.35, p < .05; r (condition, interactionally fair
committal statements, asked indirect questions of the participant,
behavior) = .57. On average, participants in the high-
and engaged in low eye contact and slumped body posture. A
assertiveness condition displayed more interactionally fair
sample response in the low-assertive condition is as follows:
behavior than did participants in the low-assertiveness
That part was kind of tough, but. . . um . . . I still thought condition (high assertiveness: M = 2.31, SD = 0.49; low
 WHAT MOTIVATES FAIRNESS?
assertiveness:M = 1.51,SZ> = 0.65).Thus, the hypothesis
that assertive communication evokes higher levels of inter-
actionally fair behavior was supported. However; it is
noteworthy that the means in both conditions were quite
low given that the scale ranged from 0 to 7.
An examination of participants' self-ratings of interac-
tionally fair behavior provides further support for the im-
pact of assertive communication on interactionally fair
behavior, t(40) = 3.54, p < .05; r (condition, interac-
tionally fair behavior) = .49. On average, participants in
the high-assertiveness condition reported higher levels of
interactionally fair behavior (M = 4.07, SD = 0.79) than
did participants in the low-assertiveness condition (M =
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
3.18, SD = 0.84). Thus, significant results were obtained
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
for both the content-coded and self-rated measures of in-
teractional fairness, although the levels of interactional
fairness indicated in the self report measure were higher
than those of the content-coded measure.
Discussion
The purpose of Study 1 was to demonstrate that the
communication style of one individual can affect the de-
gree of interactionally fair behavior exhibited by another
individual. As hypothesized, our findings indicated that an
assertive communication style on the part of an individual
receiving an evaluation had a positive impact on the de-
gree to which participants in the role of appraiser engaged
in interactionally fair behavior. As noted, ratings of parti-
cipants' comments suggest that participants in both condi-
tions did not exhibit a high degree of interactionally fair
behavior. Given that participants in Study 1 were essen-
tially passing negative judgments on the confederate, this
finding is not surprising. Folger (1993; Folger & Skarlicki,
1998) argued that decision makers often fail to engage in
interactionally fair behavior when delivering bad news.
Specifically, managers, in their attempts to distance them-
selves from the harm they may be inflicting on their subor-
dinates, may unintentionally treat their subordinates in
an unfair manner. Our findings suggest that an assertive
communication style on the part of the subordinate may
mitigate this problem; however, subordinate assertiveness
alone may not be sufficient to yield high degrees of mana-
gerial interactional fairness.
In sum, the findings of Study 1 suggest that individuals
who communicate assertively during the interview will be
more likely to evoke interactionally fair behavior in the
form of consideration and justification from the decision
maker. However, the generalizability of these findings to
a field setting is an issue. Thus, a second study was con-
ducted to examine further the relationship between the
subordinate's communication style and the manager's in-
teractionally fair behavior in the field by manipulating the
degree of assertive communication through training. The
735
intervention evaluated was an attempt to train employees
to communicate assertively in the context of discussing
their self-appraisal and receiving feedback.
Study 2
In this study, we investigated assertiveness training in
the context of voice through formal self-appraisal. Provid-
ing the opportunity for voice, particularly in the form of
formal self-appraisals, is a common method for at-
tempting to enhance the perceived fairness of appraisals
(Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Folger et al., 1992; Folger &
Lewis, 1993; Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995; Taylor et al.,
1995). As discussed later, however, research suggests that
the effectiveness of voice is qualified by the extent to
which the decision maker shows consideration of em-
ployee voice or provides justification for the decision
(Shapiro, 1993). Therefore, in Study 2, we examined as-
sertive communication training designed to increase con-
sideration and justification when employees had voice
opportunities.
Voice, or process control, is defined as "the degree to
which the procedure gives those affected by a decision an
opportunity to express their views about how the decision
should be made" (Tyler, Rasinski, & Spodick, 1985, p.
72). Voice can be distinguished from outcome control,
which refers to control over the decision outcome, in that
voice does not necessarily involve influence over the deci-
sion outcome (Leung & Li, 1990; Shapiro, 1993; Tyler el
al., 1985). When individuals do not have outcome control,
such as in third-party dispute resolution or when the deci-
sion is made by their manager, individuals' satisfaction
with the decision is influenced by the opportunity to voice
their views. The opportunity to voice one's views has a
positive effect on perceptions of fairness and reactions to
the decision independent of the level of actual influence
over the outcome (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Further, voice has
a particularly strong and positive effect when the decision
outcome is unfavorable (Brockner & Weisenfeld, 1996).
In the performance appraisal process, voice is often
operationalized by the use of self-appraisal (Folger &
Lewis, 1993; Taylor et al., 1995), which involves the
formal self-evaluation of an employee's performance that
is used to supplement performance appraisals made by
supervisors or others. Self-appraisals are often submitted
to the supervisor before the supervisor's evaluation of the
employee (Mohrman, Resnick-West, & Lawler, 1990).
Thus, because self-appraisal affords the employee the op-
portunity to provide input into his or her supervisor's
evaluation, it is expected to affect positively the employ-
ee's attitudes toward the appraisal. However, self-apprais-
als may not have the intended benefits. Research on the
benefits of self-appraisal is mixed and in some cases sug-
gests that self-appraisals can result in less acceptance and
 736 KORSGAARD, ROBERSON, AND RYMPH
satisfaction than when employees have no formal opportu-
nity to voice opinions (Roberson & Korsgaard, 1995;
Roberson et al., 1993). Given that self-ratings of perfor-
mance tend be more favorable than supervisor ratings
(Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988), self-appraisals may make
disagreements salient without ensuring that they are ad-
dressed or resolved (Korsgaard, 1996).
Research on voice provides insight on the conditions
under which self-appraisal may have a positive effect on
attitudes. Specifically, research suggests that voice effects
are more likely to be observed when individuals perceive
that their opinions were considered by their managers
(Shapiro, 1993; Tyler, 1987). Shapiro (1993) identified
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
two dimensions of consideration: perceived listener re-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sponsiveness and potential decision influence. She pre-
sented a model arguing that as long as either of these two
factors was present, voice would enhance perceptions of
procedural justice. That is, voice will lead to perceptions
of justice when individuals believe that they have the op-
portunity to influence the decision (i.e., voice is instru-
mental to influencing outcomes) or that the decision
maker is interpersonally responsive to their concerns (i.e.,
voice has noninstrumental or intrinsic value). Shapiro
(1993) also found that individuals are more apt to believe
decision makers were interpersonally responsive to their
input when they provided adequate justification for the
decision.
In sum, research on self-appraisal may have yielded
mixed results because critical conditions for the voice
effect have not always been met. Showing consideration
for subordinate input or providing adequate justification
may ensure or enhance the effects of voice (Bies & Sha-
piro, 1988; Shapiro, 1993; Tyler, 1987). Thus, interac-
tional justice, in the form of consideration of the subordi-
nate's self-appraisal and justification of the manager's
evaluation, in combination with self-appraisal, is likely to
result in perceptions of fairness and more positive atti-
tudes toward the appraisal decision.
On the basis of the results of Study 1, we expect that
subordinates who are trained to be more assertive in their
communication stylewho attempt to ensure that their
managers understand their point of view and who ask for
explanations from their managersare likely to report
greater interactionally fair behavior on the part of their
managers during the appraisal interview, enhancing the
benefits of self-appraisal.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that assertiveness
training can increase levels of assertive behaviors in a
variety of two-person interactions (Lewittes & Bern,
1983), job interviews (Austin & Grant, 1981), public
speaking situations (Grossberg, 1965), and group discus-
sions (Lewittes & Bern, 1983). Studies show both long
and short-term changes as a result of training, with bene-
ficial effects maintained for as long as 1 year (Thurman,
1985).
Rich and Schroeder (1976) identified five basic assert-
iveness training operations used in research. These in-
cluded the use of instructions and modeling for response
acquisition, behavioral practice-rehearsal for response re-
production, self-feedback for response shaping, cognitive
restructuring for modification of dysfunctional self-state-
ments, and covert rehearsal for response transfer. Not all
of these operations appear to be necessary to modify as-
sertive behavior successfully. Research has demonstrated
that behavioral interventions alone tend to be as effective
as cognitive or mixed cognitive-behavioral treatments
(Hammen, Jacobs, Mayol, & Cochran, 1980). Other stud-
ies indicate that modeling and instruction may be suffi-
cient for behavior change (Goddard, 1981; Hersen,
Eisler, & Miller, 1973; Rathus & Ruppert, 1973). In addi-
tion, treatments have varied the amount of instruction
and whether delivery is to individuals or groups. Group
treatments appear to be as effective as individual treat-
ments (Linehan, Walker, Bronheim, Haynes, & Yevzeroff,
1979). Treatments of varying length have been shown to
be effective. Although 10- to 16-hr treatments are com-
mon, in Lewittes and Bern (1983), a 3-hr treatment pro-
duced changes in participation in discussion groups. A
short 1-hr modeling and instructions intervention pro-
duced changes in level of actualization in Goddard
(1981).
The present study used a short (1-hr) group-delivered
assertiveness training intervention using modeling and in-
struction to influence appraisee assertive behavior in the
appraisal interview. Based on the results of Study 1, we
hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis I (Study 2): Individuals who have been
trained to communicate assertively will perceive greater
interactionally fair behavior on the part of their managers
than will individuals who have not been trained to commu-
nicate assertively.
As noted earlier, procedural and interactional justice
are known to influence attitudes toward the decision. Spe-
cifically, individuals are apt to be more accepting of and
satisfied with decisions when the decision maker enacts
the procedure in a fair manner (Korsgaard et al., 1995;
Sapienza & Korsgaard, 1996; Taylor et al., 1995). Given
that interactionally fair behavior has an impact on atti-
tudes toward the decision, factors that increase managers'
propensities to be interactionally fair should have a posi-
tive impact on these attitudes and perceptions. Specifi-
cally, we expect training individuals to communicate as-
sertively will be positively associated with a favorable
attitude toward the appraisal.
Hypothesis 2a: Individuals who have been trained to
communicate assertively will have a more favorable attitude
 WHAT MOTIVATES FAIRNESS?
toward the appraisal than will individuals who have not
been trained to communicate assertively.
Interactionally fair behavior is also likely to influence
an employee's relationship with the decision maker
(Lind & Tyler, 1988). Research shows that individuals are
likely to trust the decision maker more to the extent that
principles of interactional justice are followed (Folger &
Konovsky, 1989; Korsgaard et al., 1995; Sapienza & Kor-
sgaard, 1996). Consequently, we expect that assertive
communication training, which should be associated with
greater interactionally fair behavior on the part of the
manager, should he positively related to the employee's
trust in the manager.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Hypothesis 2b: Individuals who have been trained to
communicate assertively will be more trusting of their man-
agers than will individuals who have not been trained to
communicate assertively.
Similarly, theory suggests that the extent to which an
individual is treated in an interactionally fair manner by
the agents of an organization should strengthen the indi-
vidual's relationship with that organization (Tyler & Lind,
1992). Research supports this link in work organizations
in that interactionally fair behavior is positively associated
with commitment to the organization (Folger & Konov-
sky, 1989; Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Korsgaard et
al., 1995; Schaubroeck et al., 1994). Therefore, assertive
communication training, because it is expected to be posi-
tively associated with interactionally fair behavior exhib-
ited by the manager, should be positively related to em-
ployees' organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 2c: Individuals who have been trained to
communicate assertively will be more committed to the
organization than will individuals who have not been
trained to communicate assertively.
Method
Design and sample. This study was conducted at a large
retailing firm in the context of employees' quarterly perfor-
mance appraisals. The study was quasiexperimental, using a
nonequivalent groups single-factor design in which we manipu-
lated assertiveness through training. Six groups of volunteer
employees were randomly assigned to one of three conditions:
assertiveness training-formal self-appraisal; formal self-ap-
praisal; and informal self-appraisal. We did not use a design in
which self-appraisal and training were fully crossed, because
this would have resulted in a condition in which people were
trained but did not formally self-appraise. Because the training
was designed to enhance employees' assertiveness in discussing
self-opinions about their performance, we believed that the train-
ing would not make sense to employees if they were not also
instructed on how to self-appraise. Further, it is possible that
the training would have caused individuals to discuss their self-
appraisals, which would have confounded the two factors of
737
self-appraisal and training. Consequently, we omitted the condi-
tion of no self-appraisal-training.
The sample was drawn from a group of 166 employees who
worked in the accounts payable function. Employees in the ac-
counts payable function were organized into 14 teams. The
average respondent was 30 years old and had worked for the
firm for 1.5 years. Roughly two thirds of the sample had at least
1 year of postsecondary education, and 85% of the respondents
were female.
Initially, 128 employees agreed to participate in the study (42
in the training condition, 41 in the self-appraisal condition, and
45 in the control condition), resulting in an initial response
rate of 77%. In this first phase of the study, which occurred
approximately 2 weeks before the appraisals, all 128 partici-
pants attended a training session in which assertiveness training
and self-appraisal were manipulated. The second phase, which
occurred after employees had received their performance re-
views, was a survey that was distributed to the 128 participants.
Eighty-four of the surveys were returned, resulting in a response
rate of 66%. Identifying information, necessary for determining
the respondent's condition, was not included in 12 surveys,
resulting in a working sample of 72 (85%), with 25 in the
assertiveness training-formal self-appraisal condition, 21 in the
formal self-appraisal condition, and 26 in the informal self-
appraisal condition. Response rates within conditions did not
differ significantly. Further, there were no significant differences
between the initial 128 participants, the 84 respondents to the
survey, and the 72 matched respondents on demographic vari-
ables (age, gender, education, and tenure). There were also no
differences between the sample of 84 and the sample of 72 on
any of the dependent variables.
Treatments. The intervention took place in the context of
the firm's performance appraisal system. The appraisal form
had two parts. The first part consisted of an objective, produc-
tion-based evaluation. The second part consisted of eight dimen-
sion ratings, each with a 4-point scale. Ratings were done on a
quarterly basis; pay increases and bonuses were based on ratings
in the fourth quarter. The appraisal period we investigated was
a non-pay increase time, although the results would count to-
ward the fourth-quarter rating. Participants in all three condi-
tions attended performance review training sessions that were
conducted by the experimenter and a member of the organiza-
tion's human resource (HR) staff. Participants attended the ses-
sions in groups of 10 to 20. The sessions lasted roughly 1 hr
and were conducted approximately 2 weeks before the apprais-
als were scheduled to take place.
In the assertiveness training-formal self-appraisal condition,
participants were instructed on how to conduct a self-appraisal.
In addition, participants in this condition were trained to commu-
nicate assertively. First, the HR staff member reviewed the perfor-
mance appraisal form with participants. The experimenter then
instructed participants how to prepare for the performance review.
Participants were first given a self-appraisal form for rating their
own performance on the same dimensions included in the manag-
ers' form. Participants were told to rate their performance and to
provide detailed behavioral reasons for their ratings. Examples
were used for illustrations. Subsequent parts of the self-appraisal
form asked for a listing of strengths and weaknesses and for
performance objectives for the coming quarter. Participants were
 738 KORSGAARD, ROBERSON, AND RYMPH
instructed to complete the self-appraisal form and to give it to
their superiors at least 1 week before the review discussion was
scheduled to take place. Participants were informed that their
superiors were expecting to receive a copy of the self-appraisal,
which would be placed in their personnel file.
In addition, participants received training on how to partici-
pate in the review discussion. The content of the training was
taken from sources on assertive communication (Bolton, 1979;
Zuker, 1984) and focused on three main learning points: (a)
Give information by stating your self-appraisal rating and the
reasons for your rating; (b) obtain information by asking your
superior to provide a justification for his or her ratings and for
examples, especially if there is disagreement; and (c) use body
language by maintaining eye contact, sitting up straight, leaning
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
forward, and taking notes. After a brief lecture on the three
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
learning points, participants watched two scripted role-plays:
one showing assertive behavior in the review discussion and
another showing nonassertive behavior. They then participated
in an exercise to identify the assertive and nonassertive behavior.
In the formal self-appraisal condition, participants were in-
structed on how to conduct a self-appraisal. As in the first treat-
ment, the HR staff member first reviewed the performance ap-
praisal form. The experimenter then instructed participants how
to complete the self-appraisal form, using the same instructions
and illustrations given to participants in the self-appraisal-train-
ing condition. Participants were instructed to complete the self-
appraisal form and to give it to their superiors 1 week before
the review discussion was scheduled to take place. Participants
were informed that their superiors were expecting to receive a
copy of the self-appraisal, which would be placed in their per-
sonnel file.
Self-appraisal can do more than create the opportunity for
voice; it can increase the salience of self-opinions. Research
suggests that, apart from any voice effects, self-opinions affect
reactions to feedback from others (Blakely, 1993; Cawley &
Levy, 1992; Korsgaard, 1996; Roberson & Korsgaard, 1995).
Therefore, in the informal self-appraisal condition, we attempted
to hold constant the salience of self-opinions so that any ob-
served relationships with self-appraisal would be attributable
to voice only. This condition involved informal, private self-
appraisal to make self-opinions salient without creating expecta-
tions of voice or influence. As in the prior two conditions, the
HR staff member reviewed the performance appraisal form. The
experimenter then introduced the self-appraisal form as an aid
to help participants prepare for the review discussion. It was
suggested that each participant privately complete the form a
few days before his or her review discussion as a way to think
about the things the participant would like to discuss with his
or her superior.
Measures. All measured variables were obtained from the
survey administered after the performance reviews were con-
ducted. Excepting demographic items and the manipulation
check, all items included 5-point, Likert-type scales. The train-
ing manipulation focused on two components of interactional
justice: consideration of input and justification. Therefore, inter-
actionally fair behavior was operationalized by the extent that
the participant believed that his or her supervisor showed consid-
eration of the participant's input into the evaluation and pro-
vided adequate justification of the supervisor's evaluation of the
participant. Five items adapted from previous research were
used (Lind, Lissak, & Conlon, 1983; Tyler, 1987). Examples of
items are ' 'To what extent did your leader take steps to really
understand your views on your own performance?" and "To
what extent did your leader explain the reasons for the evalua-
tion you received?''
Attitude toward the appraisal was measured by five items
adapted from previous research (Giles & Mossholder, 1990;
Roberson et al., 1993) assessing agreement and satisfaction with
the appraisal. Sample items are ' 'I agree with my final rating,''
and "I feel good about the way the review was conducted."
Trust in manager was measured by a four-item scale adapted
from Roberts and O'Reilly (1974) assessing the participant's
trust in his or her supervisor. An example is "I trust my leader."
Organizational commitment was measured by Porter and col-
leagues' (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979; Porter & Smith,
1970) nine-item measure of commitment. A sample item is "I
really care about the fate of my company.'' In addition, manag-
ers' performance appraisal ratings of subordinates were ob-
tained on a subset of the sample (n = 41). Managers made four
ratings: team effectiveness, individual job effectiveness, team
skills, and overall effectiveness. These ratings, made on a 5-
point scale (1 = outstanding; 5 = not effective), were averaged
to form an overall performance ratings measure.
Two manipulation check procedures were administered. The
first check, which assessed the efficacy of training, consisted of
a prepost test of knowledge of the training learning objectives.
The test consisted of four open-ended items; each question was
a problem situation pertaining to assertive communication in
the appraisal process. A sample question was "During the dis-
cussion, your leader says: T rated you as not effective on flexi-
bility. It's something you really need to work on.' What do you
say?'' Each item was coded for correctness on a 10-point scale
by a rater who was unaware of whether the form was pretest
or posttest. The rater was trained against another rater on a
pilot sample, and the resulting interrater reliability, based on an
intraclass correlation (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979), was estimated
at .85. Given the test's potential reactivity (e.g., participants in
the self-appraisal and control conditions could learn from the
test), it was only administered in the training condition. The
second manipulation check, which assessed the efficacy of self-
appraisal, consisted of one item in which respondents indicated
whether they had completed a formal self-appraisal (yes-no).
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities for
all variables are listed in Table 1. Cell means and standard
deviations are listed in Table 2. As noted in Table 1, the depen-
dent measuresinteractionally fair behavior, attitude toward
the appraisal, trust in the manager, and organizational commit-
mentwere all strongly correlated.
Results
A dependent t test of the knowledge test results revealed
that participants in the assertiveness training-formal self-
appraisal condition were significantly more knowledge-
able about the principles of assertive communication after
the training than they were before the training, f(35) =
6.61, p < .05; pretest M = 4.52, SD = 1.61; posttest M
 WHAT MOTIVATES FAIRNESS? 739

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities for Variables in Study 1

Variable M SD

1. Interactionally fair
behavior 3.64 1.03 (.94)
2. Attitude toward
appraisal 3.85 0.97 .69* (.92)
3. Trust in manager 3.85 0.92 .74* .67* (.89)
4. Organizational
commitment 3.55 0.77 .45* .40* .47* (.89)
5. Performance rating9 1.98 0.48 -.15 -.24 -.17 -.05 (.73)
6. Gender* 0.13 0.34 -.11 -.12 -.13 -.17 .16

7. Age 37.58 13.15 .05 -.05 -.07 .08 -.08 -.19
8. Education (years) 13.50 1.92 .00 .02 .08 .09 -.36 -.11 .17
9. Tenure 1.59 0.59 -.16 -.23* -.32* -.13 -.27 .04 .31* .20
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. Reliabilities are reported in parentheses along the diagonal.

a
Performance ratings were only available for 41 participants; correlations with this measure were estimated
on 41 participants. b Gender was coded: 1 male; 0 - female.
*p < .05.

= 6.48, SD = 1.77. This finding supports the efficacy of
the training manipulation. Analysis of the self-appraisal
manipulation check revealed a significant association be-
tween condition and whether respondents completed a
formal self-appraisal, * 2 (2, N = 82) = 40.79, p < .05;
a greater proportion of respondents in the two appraisal
conditions indicated that they had formally self-appraised
(assertiveness training-formal self-appraisal = .96; for-
mal self-appraisal = .86; informal self-appraisal = .09).
All hypotheses were tested by a one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) and an a priori contrast comparing
the assertiveness training-formal self-appraisal condition
to the formal self-appraisal and informal self-appraisal
conditions, which are reported in Table 3. Hypothesis 1
stated that individuals who are trained to communicate
assertively will perceive greater interactionally fair behav-
ior on the part of their managers than will individuals
who are not trained. The contrast comparing assertiveness
training-formal self-appraisal to the other two conditions
was not significant, F( I , 71) = 3.05, p = .085.
Hypotheses 2a through 2c, which concerned the rela-
tionship between assertive communication training and
subsequent attitudes, were each tested by one-way
ANO'VAs and a priori contrasts comparing the asser-
tiveness trainingformal self-appraisal condition to the
remaining conditions. As noted in Table 3, the contrast
comparing training to the other two conditions was sig-
nificant for attitude toward the appraisal. This finding
indicates that individuals who were trained to communi-
cate assertively are more accepting of and more satisfied
with their manager's performance evaluation decision.
Hypothesis 2a was, therefore, supported. The training con-
trast for trust in the manager was also significant, indicat-
ing that training for assertive communication is associated
with greater trust. Thus, Hypothesis 2b was supported.
The training contrast for organizational commitment (Hy-
pothesis 2c) was not significant. In sum, two of the three
hypotheses concerning attitudes were supported.
Discussion
The purpose of Study 2 was to extend the findings
of Study 1 by investigating the relationships of assertive

Table 2
Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables in Study 2

Assertiveness
training-formal Formal Informal
self-appraisal self-appraisal self-appraisal
(n = 25) (n = 21) (n = 26)

Variable M SD M SD M SD

Interactionally fair behavior 4.01 0.82 3.70 1.08 3.45 1.10

Attitude toward appraisal 4.26' 0.57 3.99 0.83 3.55 1.15
Trust in manager 4.26" 0.77 3.84 1.05 3.65 0.88
Organizational commitment 3.73 0.83 3.65 0.63 3.44 0.80

a
Assertiveness training-formal self-appraisal condition differed significantly from the other two conditions.
 740 KORSGAARD, ROBERSON, AND RYMPH
Table 3
Significance Tests for All Dependent Variables in Study 2
Dependent variable and effect <y
Interactionally fair behavior
Treatment 1.96 2 .05
Training vs. no training 3.05** 1 .04
Attitude toward appraisal
Treatment 4.16* 2 .11
Training vs. no training 4.90* 1 .06
Trust in manager
Treatment 2.90** 2 .08
Training vs. no training 4.98* 1 .07
Organizational commitment
Treatment 0.96 2 .03
Training vs. no training 0.97 1 .01
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
**p<.10.
communication training to fairness perceptions and atti-
tudes in a field setting. We expected assertive communica-
tion training to be positively associated with perceptions
of interactionally fair behavior during the appraisal review
and, consequently, be positively associated with a favor-
able attitude toward the appraisal, trust in the manager,
and organizational commitment. The findings provided
support for two of the four hypotheses. Specifically, sig-
nificant findings were obtained for the relationship be-
tween training and attitude toward the appraisal and be-
tween training and trust in the manager. In both cases,
participants in the training-self-appraisal condition re-
acted significantly more favorably than did participants
in the formal and informal self-appraisal conditions.
The results did not support the effect of training on
perceptions of the manager's behavior, a finding that may
have reflected the relatively brief intervention used in this
study. Although our assessment of training efficacy indi-
cated that participants' knowledge of assertive communi-
cation significantly increased, we cannot ascertain
whether such knowledge fully transferred to behavior on
the job. Consequently, the training could have produced
relatively weak changes in participants' communication
styles. Indeed, because the pre-post knowledge test was
administered only to those in the formal training condi-
tion, it is possible that differences attributable to training
were due in part to learning derived through testing. Fur-
ther, given that the study was conducted in a short time
frame, additional research is needed to determine whether
assertive communication training would have lasting
effects.
Although Study 2 provides encouraging implications
for enhancing the effectiveness of performance appraisals
through training, the findings should be interpreted with
caution. First, because we did not directly measure subor-
dinates' behavior, it is unclear how training subordinates
may affect managers' behavior and subordinates' atti-
tudes. For example, it is possible that assertive communi-
cation training may have cued participants to attend to
consideration and justification behaviors exhibited by the
manager. Similarly, training may have cued participants
to expect a more favorable appraisal. However, high ex-
pectations alone would not likely produce favorable atti-
tudes, for unless the appraisal review were in actuality
more favorable, unmet expectations would likely result
in more negative reactions (Wanous, Poland, Premack, &
Davis, 1992). Another possibility is that the assertiveness
training enabled participants to influence the actual out-
comes of the appraisal. However, we obtained managers'
performance ratings on a subset of the sample (n = 41),
which revealed no significant differences in the favorable-
ness of ratings between conditions.
It is also possible that the training findings resulted
solely from changes in the participant's behavior rather
than increased consideration and justification from the
manager. First, the findings could have resulted merely
from an increased level of talking on the part of the subor-
dinate. This explanation seems unlikely, however, in light
of prior research indicating that the amount of talking
itself does not predict employees' reactions beyond the
impact of the quality of the interaction (Burke, Weitzel, &
Weir, 1978; Greller, 1975, 1978; Wexely, Singh, & Yukl,
1973). Second, it is possible that training did affect assert-
ive behavior, and this led to increased voice and appeal,
enhancing perceptions of procedural justice regardless of
the supervisor's behavior.
Moreover, because participants were not randomly as-
signed to condition, it is possible that the findings are
attributable to preexisting differences between conditions.
Analyses with available demographic data indicated that
age, tenure, and level of education did not account for
variance attributed to the training manipulation. Gender,
however, may have played a role in the results of Study
2, for males were unequally distributed across conditions.
Because the overall proportion of males in the sample
was extremely small, the extreme skewness in the distribu-
tion of males prohibited us from performing a valid and
sufficiently powerful test of the effects of gender (Co-
hen & Cohen, 1983; Lord, 1967, 1970). Consequently,
it is not clear from the current findings how assertive
communication would relate to interactional fairness in a
more diverse sample. For example, research indicates that
men and women often differ in their self-perceptions of
assertiveness (Bridges, Sanderman, Breukers, Ranchor, &
Arrindell, 1991; Cowen, Wilcox, & Nykodym, 1990);
thus, men and women may respond differently to training
to increase assertiveness. Research also suggests that the
gender of the actor may influence reactions of the observer
to the actor's assertive behavior (Wilson & Gallois,
1985), particularly in mixed dyads (Mathison, 1986).
Thus, a manager's response to an assertive employee may
 WHAT MOTIVATES FAIRNESS?
depend on the gender of both the manager and the em-
ployee. However, the findings from Study 1, which pro-
vided a reasonably powerful test of gender effects, suggest
that the gender of the appraiser was not relevant: partici-
pants' gender did not moderate the impact of assertive
communication.
General Discussion
To date, the justice literature has largely taken a one-
sided view of the dynamics of social exchange relation-
ships, such as managersubordinate dyads, by focusing
on the manager's role and neglecting the impact of the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
subordinate's behavior on fair exchanges. In contrast, the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
present investigation sought to examine the impact of
the subordinate's actions on the manager's propensity to
engage in interactionally fair behavior. Together, the two
studies provide evidence of the importance of the subordi-
nate's role. In Study 1, we found that appraisees can affect
the appraiser's actions, for appraisee assertive behavior
resulted in greater interactionally fair behavior on the part
of the appraiser. Study 2 supported the generalizability of
this result to the field: Subordinates who were trained to
communicate assertively in the appraisal review reacted
more favorably to their appraisals than did those who
were not trained.
Our findings suggest that the processes underlying jus-
tice effects may involve reciprocal relationships between
the manager's fairness in decision making and the percep-
tions, attitudes, and behaviors of the subordinate. This
conclusion is consistent with Folger's (Folger, 1993; Fol-
ger & Skarlicki, 1998) view of the determinants of fair
behavior. He argued that a decision maker's tendency to
avoid communicating fairly with a subordinate may be
driven by the anticipated reaction of the subordinate. Sup-
port for the view that subordinates' behavior can affect
decision makers' fairness can also be derived from leader-
ship theory. Specifically, research on leader-member ex-
change shows that, as newcomers, employee's initial re-
sponses to role expectations shape the manager's impres-
sions of the employee's capability (Graen & Scandura,
1987). On the basis of these impressions, the manager
provides greater latitude (in the language of justice theory,
decision control) to employees (Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995).
Current justice interventions tend to be "top-down,"
typically involving a direct manipulation of the manager's
behavior (Schaubroeck et al., 1994). These efforts are
valuable, for they demonstrate that managers are capable
of acting in a fair manner. However, this approach can
cultivate a belief that managers merely need to display a
"veneer of fairness" (Greenberg, 1990, p. 139) to gain
acceptance of their decisions. Such tactics may backfire
if they are perceived as insincere (Greenberg, 1990). The
741
present investigation suggests that subordinates them-
selves can be trained to influence their interactions with
management. Interventions targeted at subordinates may
thus affect justice perceptions without the danger of pro-
moting disingenuous attempts at fair behavior on the part
of management.
The findings also have practical value for implementing
self-appraisals in showing that training employees to com-
municate assertively can enhance the effectiveness of such
techniques. The results suggest that such training may
be critical when self-appraisals are incorporated into the
appraisal system: Training had a significant, value-added
relationship to attitudes toward the appraisal and the man-
ager, beyond the impact of the opportunity for voice
through self-appraisal.1 Despite mixed empirical support
(e.g., Roberson et al., 1993), self-appraisal is a common
technique used to involve employees in the appraisal pro-
cess. The results of this study suggest that additional train-
ing may be needed to ensure that this technique has its
intended effects.
Little is known about why individuals opt to act in a
fair manner. Research has examined individual differences
in fairness (Bretz & Judge, 1994) and factors related to
the decision context (Folger, 1993). Our findings suggest
a third factor: the behavior of the individuals affected by
the decision. More broadly, our findings suggest that to
understand justice in organizations fully, we need to exam-
ine how each party affects the exchange process. Our
investigation is a first step in exploring the dynamics of
fair exchanges between managers and their subordinates,
and we hope it will stimulate more research in this direc-
tion. Although we know from Study 1 that an appraisee's
behavior can affect the actions of an appraiser, it is less
clear from Study 2 whether and how assertiveness training
changed the appraisee's behavior. Thus, further examina-
tion of the effects of assertiveness training is warranted.
Such studies should measure more directly the differences
in subordinate actions during the appraisal either through
observation or appraiser reports. This would strengthen
the link between training and subordinate behavior. In
addition, the effects of gender warrant further investiga-
tion. Future research should include an examination of the
effects of gender on the impact of assertiveness training as
1
To provide further evidence that the findings were due to
the value-added impact of training, we tested contrasts compar-
ing the two formal self-appraisal conditions (assertiveness train-
ing-formal self-appraisal and formal self-appraisal) to the in-
formal condition. This contrast was significant for attitude to-
ward the appraisal but not for interactionally fair behavior or
trust in the manager. These findings suggest that, although self-
appraisal played a role in the effects on appraisal attitudes,
the observed relationships among training, interactionally fair
behavior, and trust cannot be explained by self-appraisal.
 742 KORSGAARD, ROBERSON, AND RYMPH
well as the impact of gender differences in subordinate-
superior dyads on responses to assertiveness. Future re-
search should also investigate how the subordinate influ-
ences the perceptions and beliefs of the manager. Finally,
research is also needed on managerial attributes, such as
the manager's skill in handling conflict, that may qualify
how managers react to subordinate communication. Such
efforts will help develop a comprehensive view of the
processes underlying fair behavior and a broader theory
of justice.
References
Alberti, R. E., & Emmons, M. L. (1970). Your perfect right: A
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
guide to assertive behavior. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact.
Austin, M. E, & Grant, T. N. (1981). Interview training for
college students disadvantages! in the labor market: Compari-
son of five instructional techniques. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 28, 72-75.
Bies, R. I, & Shapiro, D. L. (1988). Voice and justification:
Their influence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy
of Management Journal, 31, 676-685.
Blakely, G. L. (1993). The effects of performance rating dis-
crepancies on supervisors and subordinates. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 57-80.
Bolton, R. (1979). People skills: Haw to assert yourself, listen
to others, and resolve conflicts. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). The role of human resource
systems in job applicant decision processes. Journal of Man-
agement, 20, 531-551.
Bridges, K. R., Sanderman, R., Breukers, P., Rancher, A., &
Arrindell, W. A. (1991). Sex differences in assertiveness on
the U.S. version of the scale for interpersonal behavior (SIB).
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1239-1243.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative frame-
work for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects
of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120,
189-208.
Burke, R. J., Weitzel, W., & Weir, T. (1978). Characteristics
of effective employee performance review and development
interviews: Replication and extension. Personnel Psychology,
31, 903-919.
Cawley, B. D., & Levy, P. E. (1992). Appraisal discrepancies
and feedback reactions: Afield investigation. Paper presented
at the 7th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooley, M. L., & Hollandsworth, J. G. (1977). A strategy for
teaching verbal content of assertive responses. In R. E. Alberti
(Ed.), Assertivene-ss: Innovations, applications, issues (pp.
75-82). San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact.
Cowen, K. M., Wilcox, J. R., & Nykodym, N. (1990). A com-
parative analysis of female-male communication style as a
function of organizational level. Communications, 15, 291-
309.
Cropanzano, R. (1993). Justice in the workplace: Approaching
justice in human resource management. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Epstein, N., & Jackson, E. (1978). An outcome study of short-
term communication training with married couples. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 207-212.
Folger, R. (1993, August). The "Churchillparadox"in manag-
ing hard times. Paper presented at the 1993 Academy of Man-
agement Meetings, Atlanta, GA.
Folger, R., & Bies, R. J. (1989). Managerial responsibilities
and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 2, 79-90.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. K. (1989). Effects of procedural
and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions.
Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due
process metaphor for performance appraisal. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 14, pp. 129-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Folger, R., & Lewis, D. (1993). Self appraisal and fairness in
evaluations. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the work-
place: Approaching justice in human resource, management
(pp. 107-131). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). Tough times make tough
bosses: Managerial distancing as a function of layoff blame.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 79-87.
Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. (1990). Employee reactions
to contextual and session components of performance ap-
praisal, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 371-377.
Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive
justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 691-701.
Goddard, R. C. (1981). Increase in assertiveness and actualiza-
tion as a function of didactic training. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 28, 279-287.
Gordon, S., & Waldo, M. (1984). The effects of assertive train-
ing on couples' relationships. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 12, 73-77.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. B. (1987). Toward a psychology
of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175-208).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based ap-
proach to leadership: Development of leader-member ex-
change (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying
a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly,
6, 219-247.
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of
performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
340-342.
Greenberg, J. (1987). Using diaries to promote procedural jus-
tice in performance appraisals. Social Justice Research, I,
219-234.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing
impressions of organizational justice. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol.
12, pp. 111-157). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal
and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cro-
panzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching justice
 WHAT MOTIVATES
in human resource management (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Greenberg, J. (1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote
acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 288-297.
Greller, M. (1975). Subordinate participation and reactions to
the appraisal interview. Journal of Psychology, 60, 544-549.
Greller, M. (1978). The nature of subordinate participation in
the appraisal interview. Academy of Management Journal,
21, 646-658.
Grossberg, 3. (1965). Successful behavior therapy in a case of
speech phobia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
30, 285-288.
Hammen, C. L., Jacobs, M., Mayol, A., & Cochran, S. D.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(1980). Dysfunctional cognitions and the effectiveness of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
skills and cognitive behavioral assertion training. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 685-695.
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of
self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Person-
nel Psychology, 41, 43-62.
Hayes, J. (1991). Interpersonal skills: Goal-directed behavior
at work. London: Harper Collins Academic.
Hersen, M., Eisler, R. M., & Miller, P. M. (1973). Development
of assertive responses: Clinical measurement and research
considerations. Behavior Research and Therapy, 11, 505-
521.
Hollandsworth, J. G., & Cooley, M. L. (1978). Provoking anger
and gaining compliance with assertive vs. aggressive re-
sponses. Behavior Therapy, 9, 640-646.
Hull, D. B., & Schroeder, H. E. (1979). Some interpersonal
effects of assertion, nonassertion, and aggression. Behavior
Therapy, 10. 20-28.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness
of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes
and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
698-707.
Korsgaard, M. A. (1996). The impact of self-appraisals on reac-
tions to feedback from others: The role of self-consistency
and self-enhancement concerns. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 17, 301-311.
Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice
in performance evaluation. Journal of Management, 21, 657-
699.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995).
The role of procedural justice in building commitment, attach-
ment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams. Academy
of Management Journal, 38, 60-84.
Leung, K., & Li, W. (1990). Psychological mechanisms of pro-
cess-control effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 613-
620.
Lewittes, H. J., & Bern, S. L. (1983). Training women to be
more assertive in mixed-sex task-oriented discussions. Sex
Roles, 9, 581-596.
Lind, E. A., Lissak, R. I., & Conlon, D. E. (1983). Decision
control and process control effects on procedural fairness
judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 338-
350.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of proce-
dural justice. New "Vbrk: Plenum.
FAIRNESS? 743
Linehan, M. M., Walker, R. O., Bronheim, S., Haynes, K. R, &
Yevzeroff, H. (1979). Group versus individual assertion train-
ing. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 47,
1000-1002.
Lord, F. M. (1967). A paradox in the interpretation of group
comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 304-305.
Lord, P.M. (1970). Statistical adjustments when comparing
preexisting groups. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 336-337.
Mathison, D. L. (1986). Sex differences in the perception of
assertiveness among female managers. Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 126, 599-606.
Miceli, M. P., Jung, L, Near, 1. P., & Greenberger, D. B. (1991).
Predictors and outcomes of reactions to pay-for-performance
plans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 508-521.
Mohrman, A. M., Jr., Resnick-West, S. M., & Lawler, E. E. HI
(1990). Designing performance appraisal systems: Aligning
appraisals and organizational realities. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The mea-
surement of organizational commitment. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Porter, L. W., & Smith, J. F. (1970). The etiology of organiza-
tional commitment. Unpublished manuscript, University of
California, Irvine.
Rabin, C., & Zelner, D. (1992). The role of assertiveness in
clarifying roles and strengthening job satisfaction of social
workers in multidisciplinary mental health settings. British
Journal of Social Work, 22, 17-32.
Rakos, R. P. (1986). Asserting and confronting. In O. Hargie
(Ed.), A handbook of communication skills (pp. 407-440).
London: Croom Helm.
Rathus, S. A., & Ruppert, C. A. (1973). Assertion training in
the secondary school and the college. Adolescence, 8, 257-
264.
Rich, A. R., & Schroeder, H. E. (1976). Research issues in
assertiveness training. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1084-
1096.
Roberson, L., & Korsgaard, M. A. (1995, May). Does public
self-appraisal affect reactions to feedback? Presented at the
Conference for Society for Industrial/Organizational Psy-
chology, Orlando, FL.
Roberson, L., Torkel, S. J., Korsgaard, M. A., Klein, D., Did-
dams, M., & Cayer, M. (1993). Self-appraisal and perceptions
of the appraisal discussion: A field experiment. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 14, 129-142.
Roberts, K. H., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1974). Measuring organiza-
tional communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59,
321-326.
Sapienza, H. J., & Korsgaard, M. A. (1996). Managing investor
relations: The impact of procedural justice in establishing and
sustaining investor support. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 39, 544-574.
Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R., & Brown, F. W. (1994). Proce-
dural justice explanations and employee reactions to eco-
nomic hardship: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 79, 455-460.
Shapiro, D. (1993). Reconciling theoretical differences among
procedural justice research by re-evaluating what it means to
have one's views "considered": Implications for third party
 744 KORSGAARD, ROBERSON, AND RYMPH

managers. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace:
Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp.
51-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations:
Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86,
420-428.
Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., &
Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal:
A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 40, 495-523.
Thurman, C. W. (1985). Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral
treatments in reducing type A behavior among university fac-
ulty. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 74-83.
Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value expressive ef-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). New Mwk: Aca-
demic Press.
Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., & Spodick, N. (1985). Influence
of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning
of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 48, 72-81.
Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L., Davis, K. S.
(1992). The effects of met expectations on newcomer atti-
tudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77, 288-297.
Wexely, K. N., Singh, J. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1973). Subordinate
personality as a moderator of the effects of participation in
three types of appraisal interviews. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 58, 54-59.

Wilson, L. K., & Gallois, C. (1985). Perceptions of assertive

fects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

behavior: Sex combination, role appropriateness, and mes-

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333-344.
sage type. Sex Roles, 12, 125-141.
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures:
Zuker, E. (1984). Mastering assertiveness skills. New York:
The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. Carroll
AMACOM.
(Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings
(pp. 77-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Received July 24, 1996
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of author- Revision received April 10, 1998
ity in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental Accepted April 10, 1998

New Editors Appointed, 2000-2005

The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Associa-

tion announces the appointment of three new editors for 6-year terms beginning in 2000.

As of January 1,1999, manuscripts should be directed as follows:

For Experimental and Clinical Psy chopharmacology, submit manuscripts to

Warren K. Bickel, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, 38
Fletcher Place, Burlington, VT 05401-1419.

For the Journal of Counseling Psychology, submit manuscripts to Jo-Ida C.

Hansen, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 East
River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0344.

For the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor-

mance, submit manuscripts to David A. Rosenbaum, PhD, Department of Psy-
chology, Pennsylvania State University, 642 Moore Building, University Park,
PA 16802-3104.

Manuscript submission patterns make the precise date of completion of the 1999 volumes
uncertain. Current editors, Charles R. Schuster, PhD; Clara E. Hill, PhD; and Thomas H.
Carr, PhD, respectively, will receive and consider manuscripts through December 31,
1998. Should 1999 volumes be completed before that date, manuscripts will be redirected
to the new editors for consideration in 2000 volumes.