Cited by 33Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorSocial Power and Status DynamicsLabor Movements and Unions

When do leaders grant voice? How leaders’ perceptions of followers’ control and belongingness needs affect the enactment of fair procedures

Open access
Hoogervorst, Niek, De Cremer, David, van Dijke, Marius·2013·Human Relations

Abstract

Theories that explain employees’ positive emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses to fair procedures rely on control and relational processes. In the present study, we build on these models, but reverse this perspective to examine when leaders provide voice opportunities in their interactions with employees. We argued that leaders may take care of employees’ perceived individual control needs (which influence their own outcomes) by granting them voice. However, this will be the case particularly when leaders perceive that this employee also wants to belong to the organization, because this makes it more likely that employees will use their voice in a way that does not hurt the organization’s interest. Support for this predicted interaction effect was found in a laboratory experiment and a multisource field study. This research is among the first to identify factors that influence whether leaders will be more likely to act fairly, thus integrating procedural justice processes in the leadership literature.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0018726713482150

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Belliveau MA (2012) How social accounts create vs. merely explain women's unfavorable pay outcomes. Organization Science 23(4): 1154-1174.
  2. Yukl G and Fu PP (1999) Determinats of delegation and consultation by managers. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20: 219-232.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoogervorst, N., De Cremer, D., & van Dijke, M.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
  • China Europe International Business School (CEIBS), China
  • Rotterdam School of Management, The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Hoogervorst, Niek
Venue
Human Relations
Published
2013-05-22
Volume
66
Issue
7
Pages
973-992
ISSN
  • 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-282X
OpenAlex
W2135202723
Cited by
33
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
8.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Relations (publishedVersion)
  • Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) (acceptedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • CEIBS Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Labor Movements and Unions
Keywords
voice, procedural justice, leader perceptions, perceived control, leader-follower interaction, fair procedure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review