Clicca qui per scaricare

Condividi
Quando il leader interagisce in maniera equa. Gli effetti dell’equità interazionale e il ruolo moderatore del bisogno di chiusura cognitiva
Titolo Rivista: PSICOLOGIA DI COMUNITA’ 
Autori/Curatori: Antonio Pierro, Clara Amato, Gennaro Pica 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2014 Fascicolo: 2 Lingua: Italiano 
Numero pagine:  13 P. 81-93 Dimensione file:  71 KB
DOI:  10.3280/PSC2014-002007
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 


La presente ricerca esamina il ruolo moderatore del bisogno di chiusura cognitiva nella relazione fra equità interazionale del leader ed efficacia della leadership. Il bisogno di chiusura cognitiva, volto ad operazionalizzare il bisogno di riduzione dell’incertezza, viene proposto in termini di motivazione sottostante alla formazione del giudizio sul leader in funzione dell’equità interazionale percepita. Prendendo le mosse dalla teoria della gestione dell’incertezza (van den Bos e Lind, 2002), si ipotizza che l’efficacia della leadership sia contingente al grado di giustizia percepita soprattutto per i collaboratori con una più alta motivazione alla chiusura cognitiva. I risultati confermano quanto ipotizzato: il bisogno di chiusura cognitiva dei collaboratori massimizza l’efficacia della leadership equa interazionale.


Keywords: Leadership equa interazionale, relazione leader-follower, bisogno di chiusura cognitiva, riduzione dell’incertezza, efficacia della leadership.

  1. Barling J. and Phillips M. (1993). Interactional, formal, and distributive justice in the workplace: an exploratory study. Journal of Psychology, 127: 649-656., DOI: 10.1080/00223980.1993.991490
  2. Bies R.J. and Moag J.F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In: R.J. Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard and M.H. Bazerman, editors, Research on negotiations in organizations. Vol. 1: pp. 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  3. Brayfield, A.H. and Rothe H.F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35: 307-311., DOI: 10.1037/h0055617.Brown,S.P.andLeigh,T.W.(1996).Anewlookatpsychologicalclimateanditsrelationshiptojobinvolvement,effort,andperformance.JournalofAppliedPsychology,81:358-368.DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.358
  4. Cicero, L., Pierro, A. and van Knippenberg, D. (2007). Leader group prototypicality and job satisfaction: The moderating role of job stress and team identification. Group Dynamics, 11: 165-175., DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.11.3.165
  5. Cicero, L., Pierro, A. and van Knippenberg, D. (2010). Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of role ambiguity. British Journal of Management, 21:411-421., DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00648.
  6. Colquitt J.A., Scott B.A., Judge T.A. and Shaw J.C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100: 110-127., DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.09.00
  7. Colquitt J.A., Scott B.A., Rodell J.B., Long D.M., Zapata CP, Conlon D.E. and 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: 199-236., DOI: 10.1037/a003175
  8. Gellatly I.R. (1995). Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: test of a causal model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 469-485., DOI: 10.1002/job.403016050
  9. Giacomantonio M., Pierro A. and Kruglanski A.W. (2011). Leaders’ fairness and followers’ conflict handling style: The moderating role of need for cognitive closure. International Journal of Conflict Management, 22: 358-372., DOI: 10.1108/1044406111117136
  10. Greenberg J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  11. Heuer L., Blumenthal E., Douglas A. and Weinblatt T. (1999). A deservingness approach to respect as a relationally based fairness judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25: 1279-1292., DOI: 10.1177/014616729925800
  12. Hiller N.J., De Church L.A., Murase T. and Doty D. (2011). Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37: 1137-1177., DOI: 10.1177/0149206310393520
  13. Janson A., Levy L., Sitkin S.B. and Lind E.A. (2008). Fairness and other leadership heuristics: A four-nation study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17: 251-272., DOI: 10.1080/13594320701746510
  14. Konovsky M.A. and Cropanzano R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of applied psychology, 76: 698-707., DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.69
  15. Korsgaard M.A., Schweiger D.M. and Sapienza H.J. (1995). The role of procedural justice in building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 60-84., DOI: 10.2307/25672
  16. Kruglanski A.W. (1980). Lay epistemologic, its process and content: Another look at attribution theory. Psychological Review, 87: 70-87., DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.87.1.70
  17. Kruglanski A.W. (1990). Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for social attributions. In: E.T. Higgins and R.M. Sorrentino, editors, Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior. Vol. 2: pp. 335-368. New York: Guilford Press.
  18. Kruglanski A.W., Atash M.N., De Grada E., Mannetti L., Pierro A. and Webster D.M. (1997). Psychological theory testing versus psychometric nay-saying: Comment on the Neuberg et al’s (1997) critique of the Need for Closure Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 1005-1016., DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.100
  19. Kruglanski A.W. and Webster D.M. (1996). Motivated Closing of the Mind: «Seizing » and «freezing». Psychological Review, 103: 263-283., DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.26
  20. Lind E.A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In: J.S. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano, editors, Advances in organizational justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press: pp. 56-88.
  21. Lind E.A. and Van den Bos K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in organizational behavior, 24: 181-223., DOI: 10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24006-X
  22. Niehoff B.P. and Moorman R.H. (1993). Justice as a mediator in the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 527-556., DOI: 10.2307/256591
  23. Pierro A., Cicero L., Bonaiuto M., van Knippenberg D. and Kruglanski A.W. (2005). Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of need for cognitive closure. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 503-516., DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.002
  24. Pierro A., Giacomantonio M., Kruglanski A.W. and van Knippenberg D. (2014). Follower need for cognitive closure as moderator of the effectiveness of leader procedural fairness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23: 582-595., DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.781269
  25. Pierro A. and Kruglanski A.W. (2005). Revised need for cognitive closure scale (Unpublished manuscript). Università di Roma, “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy.
  26. Skarlicki D.P., Folger R. and Tesluk P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 100-108., DOI: 10.2307/25687
  27. Taylor M.S., Tracy K.B., Renard M.K., Harrison J.K. and Carroll S.J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 495-523., DOI: 10.2307/239379
  28. Tyler T.R. and Lind E.A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In: M.P. Zanna, editor, Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 25: pp. 115-191. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  29. van den Bos K. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Assessing the information to which people are reacting has a pivotal role in understanding organizational justice. In: S. Gilliland, D. Steiner and D. Skarlicki, editors, Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice. Greenwich, CT: Information
  30. Age Publishing: pp. 63-84. van den Bos K. and Lind E.A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. Advances in experimental social psychology, 34: 1-60., DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80003-
  31. van Knippenberg D. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 22: 1078-1091., DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.00
  32. van Knippenberg D. and De Cremer D. (2008). Leadership and fairness: Taking stock and looking ahead. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17: 173-179., DOI: 10.1080/1359432080191213
  33. van Knippenberg D., De Cremer D. and van Knippenberg B. (2007). Leadership and fairness: The state of the art. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 16: 113-140., DOI: 10.1080/1359432070127583
  34. Walumbwa F.O., Cropanzano R. and Hartnell C.A. (2009). Organizational justice, voluntary learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of identification and leader-member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 1103-1126., DOI: 10.1002/job.611
  35. Webster D.M. and Kruglanski A.W. (1994). Individual differences in Need for Cognitive Closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 1049-1062., DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.104

Antonio Pierro, Clara Amato, Gennaro Pica, in "PSICOLOGIA DI COMUNITA’" 2/2014, pp. 81-93, DOI:10.3280/PSC2014-002007

   

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche