Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:52:22.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revisiting the Relationship between Justice and Extra-Role Behavior: The Role of State Ownership

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2018

Xi Chen
Xi Chen*
Affiliation:
New York University, USA University of Nottingham NingboChina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

State ownership is an important phenomenon in the world economy, especially in transition economies. Previous research has focused on how state ownership influences organizational performance, but few studies have been conducted on how state ownership influences employees. I propose that different ownership structures trigger different relational models among employees who pay attention to organizational justice consistent with their model to guide their extra-role behavior. Specifically, state-owned organizations reinforce employees’ relational concern and direct employees’ attention to procedural justice, whereas privatized organizations highlight employees' instrumental concern and direct their attention to distributive justice. I leverage a sample of organizations in China to explore how different ownership structures activate different relational models among employees and alter the relationship between organizational justice and employees’ extra-role behaviors. I find that state ownership attenuates and even reverses the positive relationship between distributive justice and extra-role behaviors. Conversely, state ownership exaggerates the positive relationship between a critical procedural justice dimension (participation in decision making) and employee extra-role behaviors. Implications for the micro-foundations of corporate governance and institutional change, organizational justice literature, and cross-cultural research are developed. This study also generates new insights for transition economies such as China.

摘要:

摘要:

国有制是世界经济、尤其是转型经济的重要现象。已有研究专注于国有制如何影响组织绩效, 但很少研究探讨国有制如何影响员工。我提出不同的所有制结构激发企业和员工之间不同的关系模式, 员工关注与这些关系模式一致的组织公平从而决定他们的角色外行为。具体而言, 国有企业强化员工的关系导向从而将注意力转向程序公平, 而私有企业强化员工的功利导向从而将注意力转向结果公平。我通过中国转型期的组织样本, 研究不同的所有制结构如何激发以上不同的关系模式, 从而改变组织公平和员工角色外行为的关系。我发现国有制弱化甚至颠覆了结果公平和角色外行为的正向关系。相反, 国有制强化了一个重要的程序公平维度——参与决策——与员工角色外行为的正向关系。本文对于公司治理的微观基础、制度变革、组织公平研究、以及跨文化研究都具有重要意义。本研究还提出了关于中国转型经济的新设想。

न्याय व अतिरिक्त भूमिका व्यवहार के सम्बन्ध का पुनरावलोकन: राज्य स्वामित्व की भूमिका

राज्य स्वामित्व विश्व अर्थव्यवस्था, विशेष तौर पर परिवर्तनशील अर्थव्यवस्थाओं में महत्वपूर्ण संवृति है. यूँ तो पूर्व शोध राज्य स्वामित्व के संगठनीय प्रदर्शन पर प्रभाव पर केंद्रित थे लेकिन कुछ अध्ययन राज्य स्वामित्व का कर्मचारियों पर प्रभाव पर भी केंद्रित थे. मेरा यह प्रस्ताव है कि भिन्न स्वामित्व संरचना कर्मचारियों के बीच भिन्न सम्बन्ध आरेख सक्रिय करती है और कर्मचारी अपने अतिरिक्त भूमिका व्यवहार को प्रेरित करने हेतु अपने संगठनीय न्याय समनुरूप आरेख पर ध्यान देते हैं. विशेषतः राज्य स्वामित्व वाले संगठन कर्मचारी के संबंधपरक प्रयोजन को सुदृढ़ करते हैं और कर्मचारी का ध्यान प्रक्रियात्मक न्याय की ओर केंद्रित करते हैं, जबकि निजी संगठन लाभपरक प्रयोजन उजागर करते हैं और कर्मचारी का ध्यान वितरणपरक न्याय पर केंद्रित करते हैं. चीन के संगठनों के एक प्रतिचयन के आधार पर मैंने यह अनुसंधान किया कि किस प्रकार स्वामित्व स्वरूप कर्मचारियों में भिन्न सम्बन्ध प्रारूप सक्रिय करता है और संगठनात्मक न्याय व कर्मचारियों के अतिरिक्त भूमिका व्यवहार के बीच सम्बन्ध को बदलता है. मैंने यह पाया की राज्य स्वामित्व वितरणपरक न्याय व अतिरिक्त भूमिका व्यवहार के सकारात्मक सम्बन्ध को क्षीण करने के साथ ही विपरीत दिशा में बदल भी देता है. इसके विपरीत, राज्य स्वामित्व निर्णय में भागीदारी के महत्वपूर्ण प्रक्रियात्मक न्याय व कर्मचारी अतिरिक्त भूमिका व्यवहार के बीच सकारात्मक सम्बन्ध को अतिरंजित करता है. वर्तमान अध्ययन में कॉर्पोरेट प्रशासन के सूक्ष्म मूलाधार और संस्थागत परिवर्तन, संगठनात्मक न्याय शोध साहित्य, व पार सांस्कृतिक शोध पर आशय का विस्तार किया गया है. यह अध्ययन चीन जैसी परिवर्तनशील अर्थव्यवस्थाओं पर नया परिज्ञान भी देता है.

Sumário:

SUMÁRIO:

Revisitando a relação entre a justiça e o comportamento extrafuncional: o papel da propriedade estatal

SUMÁRIO: A propriedade estatal é um fenômeno importante na economia mundial, especialmente nas economias em transição. Pesquisas anteriores se concentraram em como a propriedade estatal influencia o desempenho organizacional, mas poucos estudos foram conduzidos sobre como a propriedade estatal influencia os empregados. Proponho que distintas estruturas de propriedade desencadeiam esquemas relacionais entre os funcionários que prestam atenção a uma justiça organizacional consistente com seu modelo para orientar seu comportamento extrafuncional. Especificamente, as organizações estatais reforçam a preocupação relacional dos funcionários e direcionam a atenção dos funcionários para a justiça processual, enquanto as organizações privadas destacam a preocupação instrumental e direcionam a atenção dos funcionários para a justiça distributiva. Utilizo uma amostra de organizações na China para explorar como diferentes estruturas de propriedade incitam diferentes modelos relacionais entre funcionários e alteram a relação entre a justiça organizacional e os comportamentos extrafuncionais dos funcionários. Concluo que a propriedade estatal atenua e até inverte a relação positiva entre justiça distributiva e comportamentos extrafuncional. Por outro lado, a propriedade estatal amplia a relação positiva entre uma dimensão crítica da justiça processual (participação na tomada de decisões) e comportamentos extrafuncionais do empregado. Implicações para as micro fundações de governança corporativa e mudança institucional, literatura sobre justiça organizacional e pesquisa transcultural são desenvolvidas. Este estudo também gera novos insights para economias em transição, como a China.

Аннотация:

АННОТАЦИЯ:

К вопросу о взаимосвязи между справедливостью и внеролевым поведением: Роль государственной формы собственности

АННОТАЦИЯ: Государственная форма собственности – это важное явление в мировой экономике, особенно в странах с переходной экономикой. Предыдущие исследования были сосредоточены на том, как государственная форма собственности влияет на эффективность организации, но существует мало исследований о том, как государственная форма собственности влияет на сотрудников. Я предполагаю, что различные формы собственности создают разные схемы отношений среди сотрудников, которые уделяют внимание организационной справедливости, которая согласуется с их схемами внеролевого поведения. В частности, государственные организации усиливают социальную озабоченность сотрудников и направляют их непосредственное внимание на процессуальную справедливость, тогда как частные организации выявляют инструментальную озабоченность и обращают внимание сотрудников на распределительную справедливость. Я провожу выборку из организаций в Китае для того, чтобы изучить, каким образом разные формы собственности активируют различные социальные схемы среди сотрудников и изменяют взаимосвязь между организационной справедливостью и внеролевым поведением сотрудников. Я устанавливаю, что государственная форма собственности ослабляет и даже полностью меняет положительную взаимосвязь между распределительной справедливостью и внеролевым поведением. Напротив, государственная форма собственности еще более увеличивает положительную взаимосвязь между критически важным аспектом процессуальной справедливости (участие в принятии решений) и внеролевым поведением сотрудников. В статье делается ряд выводов, которые имеют особое значение для базовых оснований корпоративного управления и институциональных изменений, а также в области организационной справедливости и межкультурных исследований. Данное исследование также предлагает новые идеи для стран с переходной экономикой, как, например, для Китая.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

Revisando la relación entre justicia y el comportamiento extra-rol: El rol de la propiedad Estatal

RESUMEN: La propiedad Estatal es un fenómeno importante en la economía mundial, especialmente en economías en transición. La investigación previa se ha enfocado en cómo la propiedad estatal influye en el desempeño organizacional, pero se han realizado pocos estudios sobre cómo la propiedad estatal influye a los empleados. Propongo que una estructura de propiedad diferente desencadena diferentes esquemas relacionales entre los empleados, quienes prestan atención a la justicia organizacional consistente con su esquema para guiar su comportamiento a asumir funciones adicionales (extra-rol). Específicamente, las organizaciones de propiedad estatal refuerzan la preocupación relacional de los empleados y direccionan la atención de los empleados a la justicia procesal, mientras que las organizaciones privatizadas destacan la preocupación instrumental y dirigen la atención de los empleados hacia la justicia distributiva. Aprovecho una muestra de organizaciones en China para explorar como una estructura de propiedad diferente activa diferentes esquemas relacionales entre los empleados y altera la relación entre la justicia organizacional y los comportamientos de los empleados a asumir funciones adicionales (extra-rol). Encuentro que la propiedad estatal atenúa e incluso reversa la relación positiva entre la justicia distributiva y los comportamientos extra-rol. Por el contrario, la propiedad estatal exagera la relación positiva entre una dimensión procesal crítica de la justicia (participación en la toma de decisiones) y los comportamientos extra-rol de los empleados. Se desarrollan las implicaciones para los micro-fundamentos del gobierno corporativo y cambio institucional, la literatura de justicia organizacional, y la investigación intercultural. Este estudio también genera nuevos conocimientos para las economías en transición como China.

Keywords

distributive justiceextra-role behaviorprocedural justicerelational modelstate ownership结果公平程序公平国有制角色外行为关系模式वितरणपरक न्यायअतिरिक्त भूमिका व्यवहारप्रक्रियात्मक न्यायसंबंधपरक प्रारूपराज्य स्वामित्वjustiça distributivacomportamento extrafuncionaljustiça proceduralesquema relacionalPropriedade estatalраспределительная справедливостьвнеролевое поведениепроцессуальная справедливостьсоциальная схемагосударственная форма собственностиjusticia distributivacomportamiento extra-roljusticia procesalesquema relacionalpropiedad estatal
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 607 - 639
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2: 267–299.Google Scholar
Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. 2010. Comparative and international corporate governance. The Academy of Management Annals, 4 (1): 485–556.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Culpepper, S. A. 2013. Best-practice recommendations for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management, 39 (6): 1490–1528.Google Scholar
Bai, C., & Wang, Y. 1998. Bureaucratic control and the soft budget constraint. Journal of Comparative Economics, 26 (1): 41–61.Google Scholar
Benson, J., & Zhu, Y. 1999. Markets, firms and workers in Chinese state-owned enterprises. Human Resource Management Journal, 9 (4): 58–74.Google Scholar
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. 1988. Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (3): 676–685.Google Scholar
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. 2003a. A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a fair process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (6): 747–758.Google Scholar
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. 2003b. What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13 (1): 107–126.Google Scholar
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. 2009. Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (2): 445–464.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology, 2: 389–444.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. 2001. Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37 (4): 300–315.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., Chen, Y.-R., Mannix, E. A., Leung, K., & Skarlicki, D. P. 2000. Culture and procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend on how you do it. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (1): 138–159.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., van den Bos, K., & Chen, Y.-R. 2005. The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96 (2): 155–167.Google Scholar
Bruton, G. D., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Stan, C., & Xu, K. 2015. State-owned enterprises around the WORLD as hybrid organizations. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 29 (1): 92–114.Google Scholar
Burawoy, M., & Lukacs, J. 1985. Mythologies of work: A comparison of firms in state socialism and advanced capitalism. American Sociological Review, 50 (6): 723–737.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Chen, J. 2001. Ownership structure as corporate governance mechanism: Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Economics of Planning, 34 (1): 53–72.Google Scholar
Chiu, C. C. H. 2006. Changing experiences of work in reformed state-owned enterprises in China. Organization Studies, 27 (5): 677–697.Google Scholar
Chiu, W. C. K. 2002. Do types of economic ownership matter in getting employees to commit? An exploratory study in the People's Republic of China. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13 (6): 865–882.Google Scholar
Choi, J., & Chen, C. C. 2007. The relationships of distributive justice and compensation system fairness to employee attitudes in international joint ventures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28 (6): 687–703.Google Scholar
Coase, R. H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 4 (16): 386–405.Google Scholar
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86 (2): 278–321.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3): 386–400.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. 2013. Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98 (2): 199–236.Google Scholar
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. 2000. The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (4): 791–808.Google Scholar
Cuervo, A., & Villalonga, B. 2000. Explaining the variance in the performance effects of privatization. The Academy of Management Review, 25 (3): 581–590.Google Scholar
Dharwadkar, R., George, G., & Brandes, P. 2000. Privatization in emerging economies: An agency theory perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 25 (3): 650–669.Google Scholar
Dong, X.-Y., & Putterman, L. 2003. Soft budget constraints, social burdens, and labor redundancy in China's state industry. Journal of Comparative Economics, 31 (1): 110–133.Google Scholar
Doucouliagos, C. 1995. Worker participation and productivity in labor-managed and participatory capitalist firms: A meta-analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49 (1): 58–77.Google Scholar
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S.-C. 1997. Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (3): 421–444.Google Scholar
Farh, J. L., Zhong, C.-B., & Organ, D. W. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior in the People's Republic of China. Organization Science, 15 (2): 241–253.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. 1991. Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations: Communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, market pricing. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. 1992. The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99 (4): 689–723.Google Scholar
Fiss, P. C. 2008. Institutions and corporate governance. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., & Sahlin, K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism: 389–410. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 232–263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Giacobbe-Miller, J. K., Miller, D. J., Zhang, W., & Victorov, V. I. 2003. Country and organizational-level adaptation to foreign workplace ideologies: A comparative study of distributive justice values in China, Russia and the United States. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (4): 389–406.Google Scholar
Gong, Y., & Chang, S. 2008. Institutional antecedents and performance consequences of employment security and career advancement practices: Evidence from the People's Republic of China. Human Resource Management, 47 (1): 33–48.Google Scholar
Groves, T., Yongmiao, H., McMillan, J., & Naughton, B. 1994. Autonomy and incentives in Chinese state enterprises. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109 (1): 183–209.Google Scholar
Guthrie, D. 1999. Dragons in a three-piece suit: The emergence of capitalism in China: Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guthrie, D. 2002. The transformation of labor relations in China's emerging market economy. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 19 (0): 139–170.Google Scholar
Hage, J., & Aiken, M. 1969. Routine technology, social structure, and organization goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14 (3): 366–376.Google Scholar
Haslam, N., & Fiske, A. P. 1999. Relational models theory: A confirmatory factor analysis. Personal Relationships, 6 (2): 241–250.Google Scholar
Hassard, J., Morris, J., & Sheehan, J. 2002. The elusive market: Privatization, politics and state–enterprise reform in China. British Journal of Management, 13 (3): 221–231.Google Scholar
Hassard, J., Morris, J., Sheehan, J., & Yuxin, X. 2006. Downsizing the danwei: Chinese state-enterprise reform and the surplus labour question. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17 (8): 1441–1455.Google Scholar
He, W., Chen, C. C., & Zhang, L. 2004. Rewards-allocation preferences of Chinese employees in the new millennium: The effects of ownership reform, collectivism, and goal priority. Organization Science, 15 (2): 221–231.Google Scholar
Hill, C. W. L., & Snell, S. A. 1989. Effects of ownership structure and control on corporate productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 32 (1): 25–46.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. H. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Hox, J. 2010. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. 2000. Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (5): 822–828.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2006. Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (4): 884–898.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. 1992. Chinese enterprise management: Reforms in economic perspective. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Keister, L. A. 2002. Adapting to radical change: Strategy and environment in piece-rate adoption during China's transition. Organization Science, 13 (5): 459–474.Google Scholar
Kim, T.-Y., & Leung, K. 2007. Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104 (1): 83–95.Google Scholar
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. 2009. Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (4): 744–764.Google Scholar
Kwong, J. Y. Y., & Leung, K. 2002. A moderator of the interaction effect of procedural justice and outcome favorability: Importance of the relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87 (2): 278–299.Google Scholar
La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. 1999. Corporate ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance, 54 (2): 471–517.Google Scholar
Lai, X., Li, F., & Leung, K. 2013. A Monte Carlo study of the effects of common method variance on significance testing and parameter bias in hierarchical linear modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 16 (2): 243–269.Google Scholar
Le, T. V., & Buck, T. 2009. State ownership and listed firm performance: A universally negative governance relationship? Journal of Management & Governance, 15 (2): 227–248.Google Scholar
Le, T. V., & O'Brien, J. P. 2010. Can two wrongs make a right? State ownership and debt in a transition economy. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (7): 1297–1316.Google Scholar
Li, S., Xia, J., Long, C. X., & Tan, J. 2012. Control modes and outcomes of transformed state-owned enterprises in China: An empirical test. Management and Organization Review, 8 (2): 283–309.Google Scholar
Lin, N. 2011. Capitalism in China: A centrally managed capitalism (CMC) and its future. Management and Organization Review, 7 (1): 63–96.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A. 2001. Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In Greenberg, J. & Russell, C. (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice: 56–88. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. 2001. Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing predictions from fairness heuristic theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85 (2): 189–210.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Springer US.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. 1997. Procedural context and culture: Variation in the antecedents of procedural justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (4): 767–780.Google Scholar
Liu, S. 2003. Cultures within culture: Unity and diversity of two generations of employees in state-owned enterprises. Human Relations, 56 (4): 387–417.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (1): 123–150.Google Scholar
Mok, K.-H., Wong, L., & Lee, G. O. M. 2002. The challenges of global capitalism: Unemployment and state workers' reactions and responses in post-reform China. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13 (3): 399–415.Google Scholar
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. 1995. Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16 (2): 127–142.Google Scholar
Morrison, E. W. 1994. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee's perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 37 (6): 1543–1567.Google Scholar
Naughton, B. 1996. Growing out of the plan: Chinese economic reform, 1978–1993. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Naughton, B. 2005. SASAC rising. China Leadership Monitor, 14: 1–11.Google Scholar
Nee, V. 1992. Organizational dynamics of market transition: Hybrid forms, property rights, and mixed economy in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (1): 1–27.Google Scholar
Ngo, H. Y., Lau, C. M., & Foley, S. 2008. Strategic human resource management, firm performance, and employee relations climate in China. Human Resource Management, 47 (1): 73–90.Google Scholar
Organ, D. W. 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12 (1): 43–72.Google Scholar
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Pargendler, M. 2012. State ownership and corporate governance. Fordham Law Review, 80 (6): 2917–2973.Google Scholar
Parker, D. 1995. Privatization and agency status: Identifying the critical factors for performance improvement. British Journal of Management, 6 (1): 29–43.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W., Bruton, G. D., Stan, C. V., & Huang, Y. 2016. Theories of the (state-owned) firm. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33 (2): 293–317.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. 2009. Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (1): 122–141.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Jeong-Yeon, L., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5): 879–903.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26 (3): 513–563.Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. 2006. Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31 (4): 437–448.Google Scholar
Ralston, D. A., Terpstra-Tong, J., Terpstra, R. H., Wang, X., & Egri, C. 2006. Today's state-owned enterprises of China: Are they dying dinosaurs or dynamic dynamos? Strategic Management Journal, 27 (9): 825–843.Google Scholar
Ramamurti, R. 2000. A multilevel model of privatization in emerging economies. The Academy of Management Review, 25 (3): 525–550.Google Scholar
Ramaswamy, K. 2001. Organizational ownership, competitive intensity, and firm performance: An empirical study of the Indian manufacturing sector. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (10): 989–998.Google Scholar
Realo, A., Kästik, L., & Allik, J. 2004. The relationships between collectivist attitudes and elementary forms of human relations: Evidence from Estonia. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21 (6): 779–794.Google Scholar
Sanchez-Burks, J., Nisbett, R. E., & Ybarra, O. 2000. Cultural styles, relationship schemas, and prejudice against out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (2): 174–189.Google Scholar
SASAC. 2008. Shanghai state-owned assets statistical yearbook: 88–102: Shanghai state-owned assets supervision and administration commission.Google Scholar
Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. 2002. Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 27 (2): 222–247.Google Scholar
Tang, W. F. 1993. Workplace participation in Chinese local industries. American Journal of Political Science, 37 (3): 920–940.Google Scholar
The Economist. 2012. The rise of state capitalism, Vol. 402: 11–12. London: The Economist Intelligence Unit N.A., Incorporated.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. 2012. The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsai, C.-J., & Wang, W.-L. 2013. Exploring the factors associated with employees' perceived appraisal accuracy: A study of Chinese state-owned enterprises. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24 (11): 2197–2220.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. 1989. The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (5): 830–838.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. 1994. Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (5): 850–863.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. 2000. Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. 2003. The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7 (4): 349–361.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. 1996. Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (5): 913–930.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 115–191.Google Scholar
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. 1995. Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17: 215–215.Google Scholar
Vodosek, M. 2009. The relationship between relational models and individualism and collectivism: Evidence from culturally diverse work groups. International Journal of Psychology, 44 (2): 120–128.Google Scholar
Walder, A. G. 1981. Participative management and worker control in China. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 8 (2): 224–251.Google Scholar
Walder, A. G. 1983. Organized dependency and cultures of authority in Chinese industry. The Journal of Asian Studies, 43 (1): 51–76.Google Scholar
Walder, A. G. 1989. Social change in post-revolution China. Annual Review of Sociology, 15: 405–424.Google Scholar
Walder, A. G. 1995. China's transitional economy: Interpreting its significance. The China Quarterly, 144: 963–979.Google Scholar
Walder, A. G. 2011. From control to ownership: China's managerial revolution. Management and Organization Review, 7 (1): 19–38.Google Scholar
Wang, B., & Greenwood, K. M. 2015. Psychological responses to lay-off in contemporary China. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26 (3): 361–380.Google Scholar
Wang, Y. 2004. Observations on the organizational commitment of Chinese employees: Comparative studies of state-owned enterprises and foreign-invested enterprises. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15 (4–5): 649–669.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. 1981. The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 87 (3): 548–577.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2014. Corporate governance of state-owned enterprises: A toolkit. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Xing, Y., & Liu, Y. 2016. Linking leaders' identity work and human resource management involvement: The case of sociocultural integration in Chinese mergers and acquisitions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27 (20): 2550–2577.Google Scholar
Xu, X., & Wang, Y. 1999. Ownership structure and corporate governance in Chinese stock companies. China Economic Review, 10 (1): 75–98.Google Scholar
Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., Gutierrez, I., & Hitt, M. A. 2000. Privatization and entrepreneurial transformation: Emerging issues and a future research agenda. The Academy of Management Review, 25 (3): 509–524.Google Scholar
Zhao, W., & Zhou, X. 2004. Chinese organizations in transition: Changing promotion patterns in the reform era. Organization Science, 15 (2): 186–199.Google Scholar
Zif, J. 1981. Managerial strategic behavior in state-owned enterprises-business and political orientations. Management Science, 27 (11): 1326–1339.Google Scholar