留學(xué)生dissertation網(wǎng)GUANXI AND JUSTICE PERCEPTIONS IN A HIRING CONTEXT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF US AND CHINESE STUDENTS MEGHNA VIRICK
College of Business
San Jose State University
San Jose, CA 95192
JULIANA D LILLY
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville
ANEIKA L. SIMMONS
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville
WEIWEN LIAO
Central South University, China
ABSTRACT
This study addresses fairness surrounding allocation of resources utilizing four allocationrules, and examined procedural and distributive fairness among American and Chinese students.Implications for global hiring and management of employees include the careful use of the mostappropriate allocation rule in making business decisions.
INTRODUCTION
Although most adults realize that life is not always fair, the general principle of fairnessor justice is nevertheless a very strong, very basic desire for many people. Yet, fairness andjustice, like many otherabstract concepts, is open to much interpretation by the individual(Colquitt, Greenberg & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). In addition different cultures may also have
different interpretations of what is just or unjust. Previous studies on allocation rules suggestthat these rules do explain some of the variation in individual perceptions of justice (Chen,
Meindl & Hui, 1998), but few studies have examined the effect of different allocation rules onperceptions of both distributive and procedural justice between different cultures.Most studies of allocation rules focus on three general rules: equity, equality, and need.
However, as Chinese-American trade has increased, another allocation rule that should beconsidered is guanxi, the Chinese term meaning “connections” or “relationships” (Chen, Chen &Xin, 2004).” Using a guanxi allocation rule, the connection (or the relationship) between twoindividuals guides the allocation decision rather than one of the other three general rules.Because guanxi has not been included in past studies of allocation rules, the impact of its effecton perceptions of justice, to our knowledge, has never been tested in a cross-cultural context. Thepurpose of this paper, therefore, is to study whether cultural differences between two countriesaccount for variation in perceptions of justice when different allocation rules are used. We dothis by examining perceptions of procedural and distributive justice among 841 students in USand China by manipulating allocation rules in an experimental design tailored to the context of ahuman resource hiring decision.
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
The historical socialist economy in China has fostered a societal perspective of equalityand collectivism that is quite different from the individualism of the US. Although the USproclaims equality for all in terms of opportunity, the government and social structures reveal a hierarchical society in which each individual is primarily responsible for himself/herself. The#p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#
socialist philosophy ideally creates social and financial equality for all citizens, and thisphilosophy combined with the collectivistic culture of China suggests that Chinese citizensshould have higher expectations of equal treatment and higher expectations of in-group supportthan American citizens. Therefore, when allocation rules are used to make hiring decisions,Chinese citizens may be more focused on equal treatment, meeting individual needs, and ingroupsupport while American citizens may be more focused on individual merit.
Equity
The fairness of the process used to allocate rewards (i.e., procedural justice) (Thibaut &Walker, 1975) and the perceived fairness of the actual distribution of rewards (i.e., distributivejustice) is likely to be interpreted differently by individuals from different cultures. Individualsfrom a collectivist country tend to be resistant to equity allocations because of its general focuson self-interest. They tend to have a strong identity with their group. The tenets of the SocialIdentity Theory (SIT) provide some theoretical support for this behavior. This thinking patternwould make them likely to look more favorably upon group-based as opposed to individualbased rewards. They are more likely to promote group contributions and progress and wouldhold that allocations based on individual behaviors would be unfair with regard to the greatergood (i.e., the collective whole). Thus, we hypothesize
Hypothesis 1a. American students will have higher perceptions of procedural justice thanChinese students when equity rules are used to make a hiring decision.Hypothesis 1b. American students will have higher perceptions of distributive justicethan Chinese students when equity rules are used to make a hiring decision.
Equality
The origins for the different perceptions of equality allocation rules are embedded indifferent belief systems. For example, China holds to traditional views associated with
Confucianism which proposes that wealth distribution should be equal among people (Bond &
Hwang, 1986). Thus, people from the Chinese culture often adhere to the equality rule becauseit is thought to promote harmony among the whole (Giacobbe-Miller, et al., 1998). Furthermore,citizens of China more strongly connect with the members of their society as opposed toAmericans; as such, they experience a certain level of discomfort when others in their in-group
(e.g., their society) experience unequal processes and outcomes. Thus, SIT may help to explainwhy individuals from China may be more comfortable and perceive higher levels of fairnesswhen equal allocations are used with regard to procedural and distributive justice. Thus, we
hypothesize the following:Hypothesis 2a. Chinese students will have higher perceptions of procedural justice than
American students when equality allocation rules are used to make a hiring decision.Hypothesis 2b. Chinese students will have higher perceptions of distributive justice than
American students when equality allocation rules are used to make a hiring decision.#p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#
Need
The notion that each individual has the freedom to work hard to obtain a certain lifestyleis central to the fabric of the American culture. Thus, the need allocation rule, which posits thatpeople should be given allocations in accordance with their deprivation, does not align well withthe basic beliefs of the American people (Deutsch, 1985). This belief set would generallyascertain that if people found themselves in need it would be a consequence of their ownbehavior. However, the identity of an individual from a collectivist nation has an integratedrelationship with the society such that individuals generally feel a level of responsibility forothers who are in their same group (Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002). Since the individuals inthe collectivist society strongly identify with those in their in-group (i.e., society), having an
individual in need would be a reflection on the whole (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). To rectify theneed, such individuals are likely to perceive a need allocation rule to be not only procedurallyand distributively fair, but also the ethical action to implement. Thus, we posit:
Hypothesis 3a. Chinese students will have higher perceptions of procedural justice thanAmerican students when need allocation rules are used to make a hiring decision.
Hypothesis 3b. Chinese students will have higher perceptions of distributive justice than
American students when need allocation rules are used to make a hiring decision.
Guanxi
Concerns about fairness are greater for Americans (as compared to people from China)when equality or need rules are utilized as opposed to equity allocations. Americans may also
perceive injustice when a guanxi allocation rule (Yang, 1994) is used, which is a distributionmethod outside the western paradigm. Guanxi rules are related to decisions being made because
of the type of relationship that exists between people. Americans are not ignorant to the notionthat relationships (i.e., family members, college alumni) often play a role in business decisions.
However, to perceive a high level of fairness Americans would have to know that these types ofrelationships do not outweigh individual qualifications (e.g., experience, education). Conversely,
guanxi allocation rules are more accepted in a collectivist society. Thus, when guanxi is carriedout in a business setting, other members of the collectivist society, specifically those who are not
being rewarded, tend to not interpret this behavior as unfair because they expect that these typesof transactions will take place. American citizens will more likely view allocations that are madeutilizing guanxi as fraudulent and unfair. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4a. Chinese students will have higher perceptions of procedural justice thanAmerican students when guanxi allocation rules are used to make a hiring decision.
Hypothesis 4b. Chinese students will have higher perceptions of distributive justice thanAmerican students when guanxi allocation rules are used to make a hiring decision.#p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#
METHOD
Data for the study was obtained from undergraduate students from the US and China witha paper and pencil survey in a classroom setting. Students first completed scales measuring
equity sensitivity, social desirability, and justice orientation. Next, the survey contained adescription of a situation involving a potential job for which the respondent and four of his/her
classmates interviewed. Allocation rules incorporated into the context included equity, equality,need and guanxi. Surveys were translated into Chinese and data was collected during the sameone-week period in November 2007 from two universities in the US, and one in China.Measures
Procedural Justice was measured with eight items and distributive Justice, was measuredwith 10 items adapted from Colquitt (2001). To rule out their effect on our dependent variables,the following control variables were used in our analysis: Age, Sex, Equity Sensitivity, SocialDesirability, and Justice Orientation. Preexisting validated scales were used to measure Social
Desirability, Justice Orientation, and Equity Sensitivity. Reliabilities for all measures were good.
ANALYSES AND RESULTS
A series of analyses were performed to examine our hypotheses, all of which were testedprimarily through the use of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Hypotheses were tested using
the GLM procedure in SPSS.Results show that there is little difference between the means and the estimated marginalmeans, pointing to the fact that the control variables did not have a significant impact on thedependent variables. Results indicate that perceptions of justice are higher in the Equitycondition than in all other conditions. In support of Hypothesis 1a, it was found that Americanstudents have higher mean levels of procedural justice than Chinese students. We also found that
American students had higher levels of distributive justice in support of Hypotheses 1b.
Hypothesis 2 stated that Chinese students would have higher perceptions of procedural
and distributive justice under conditions of equality. Results, however, indicated that American
students had higher perceptions of distributive justice than Chinese students, in contradiction of
Hypothesis 2b Hypothesis 2a relating to procedural justice was also not supported, and theresults were in the direction contrary to what was hypothesized.
We also did not find any differences between Chinese and American students in the needcondition, indicating lack of support for both Hypothesis 3a and 3b. However, hypothesis 4 wassupported and we found that under conditions of Guanxi, Chinese students had higher
perceptions of justice for both procedural and distributive than American students. Mean levelsof procedural justice and distributive justice for American students were lower than for Chinesestudents insupport of hypothesis 4a and 4b.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study has uncovered some important relationships regarding allocation rules and#p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#
perceptions of justice in a cross cultural investigation. First, consistent with previous findings,we found that Americans do indeed find equitable allocation rules to be more procedurally and
distributively fair. When business decisions, particularly human resource decisions are made,Americans want to ensure that decision makers weighed credentials (i.e., education, experience)
heavier than other extraneous factors (e.g., political, interpersonal relationships).
Furthermore, the Americans may have had a significantly different response to thebusiness selection (i.e., hiring choice) because they seem to be more concerned with what they
gain from a business decision, indicating a possible preference for the instrumental model ofjustice. On the other hand, individuals from China seem to be more concerned about the social
factors (i.e., relational perspective) when business decisions are made, indicating a possiblepreference for the relational model of justice. In other words, the Americans were solely
concerned about whether or not they would personally be hired for the job, while the Chineseindividuals were more interested in the treatment of the collective whole. The results are in
alignment with what we know about individualistic and collectivist nations and they supportpreviously espoused findings.
Unfortunately, we failed to demonstrate that Chinese people view equality and need ruleallocations as more fair than American individuals. People from China tend to agree more withthese allocation rules because of their strong identity with those in their in-group. It could bethat the nature of our study, failed to provide a strong enough context for these tendencies to beobserved. Thus, the next investigation may need to be lengthier and more salient to allow for thein-group and out-group to fully form and influence fairness perceptions of equality and need
allocation rule distributions.
Perhaps the most exciting contribution of this investigation is related to guanxi. Thefindings from this investigation demonstrate that guanxi allocation rules play an important role inperceptions of justice with regard to the differences between people from individualistic (i.e.,American) and collectivist (i.e., China) nations in the context of human resources. Though theseresults are in line with conventional reasoning, to our knowledge, this is the first empirical studyto demonstrate that Americans will find the use of guanxi allocations rules to be bothprocedurally and distributively unfair as compared to Chinese people in the context of hiringdecisions.
The findings from this investigation clearly demonstrate that culture factors will colorhow individuals from different nations (i.e., America, China) will perceive and respond to
allocation rules. Managers should be careful to use the most appropriate allocation rule inbusiness decisions that impact people from different nations (i.e., America, China) to minimize
the likelihood of experiencing counterproductive behaviors (e.g., turnover) as a result of unfairperceptions. Superiors should work to use allocation rules that align with individuals’ thoughts#p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#
about fair allocation methods particularly in human resource decisions that strongly impactoutcomes (i.e., who is hired or promoted).

留學(xué)生dissertation網(wǎng)REFERENCES
Bond, M. H. & Hwang, K. 1986. In The Social Psychology of Chinese People. Bond, M.
H.; New York, NY. Oxford University Press, 213-266.
Chen, C. C., Chen, Ya-Ru, Xin, K. 2004. Guanxi practices and trust in management: A
procedural justice perspective. Organization Science, 15, 2, 200-209.
Chen, C. C., Meindl, J. R., Hui, H. 1998. Deciding on equity or parity: A test of situational,
cultural, and individual factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 2, 115-129.
Colquitt, J.A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 863, 386-400
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J. & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2005. What is organizational justice? A
historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt Eds. Handbook of Organizational
Justice. Mahway, New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-56.
Deutsch, M. 1985. Distributive Justice. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Giacobbe-Miller, J. K., Miller, D. J. & Zhang, W. 1997. Equity, equality and need as
determinants of pay allocations: A comparative study of Chinese and US managers.Employee Relations, 19, 4, 309-320.
Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. 2002. Relationship between organizational justice
and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 23, 1-18.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin &
S. Worchel (Eds.) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA:Brooks/Cole, pp. 33-47.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.http://www.400190.com/dissertation_writing/sociology/
Yang, M. M. 1994. Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China.
Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY, 109-145.