Work Context and the Definition of Self: How Organizational Care Influences Organization-

Based Self-Esteem
Author(s): Daniel J. McAllister and Gregory A. Bigley
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 5 (Oct., 2002), pp. 894-904
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069320
Accessed: 25/06/2009 02:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
? Academy of Management Journal
2002, Vol. 45, No. 5, 894-904.

WORK CONTEXT AND THE DEFINITION OF SELF:

HOW ORGANIZATIONAL CARE INFLUENCES ORGANIZATION-BASED
SELF-ESTEEM

DANIEL J. McAT..TISTER
National University of Singapore

GREGORY A. BIGLEY
University of Washington

We investigated how work context leads to employee self-definition. We propose that

the employees of organizations whose values and organizing principles center on
fulfilling employees' needs and acting in their best interests will report higher levels of
organization-based self-esteem. Further, we argue that perceptions of organizational
fairness and job authority mediate this relationship through the social-psychological
process of reflected appraisal. Results based on analyses of data from a sample of 186
managers and professionals from 69 different organizational settings support our
model.

Self-perceived competency and self-evaluation may
be assumed to be a function of social learning expe-
rience and the value a person has come to place on
himself as a function of his interaction with others.
Thus, organizations, and their environments, and
their actors may be viewed in terms of the self-
evaluations that such environments cultivate.
Korman, 1970: 33
Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) reflects
"an employee's evaluation of his or her personal
adequacy and worthiness as an organizational
member" (Gardner & Pierce, 1998: 50) and "the
self-perceived value that individuals have of them-
selves as organizational members acting within an
organizational context" (Pierce, Gardner, Cum-
mings, & Dunham, 1989: 625). Employees with
high OBSE are secure in the belief that they are
trusted, valued, contributing organization members
(Pierce, Gardner, Dunham, & Cummings, 1993;
Gardner & Pierce, 1998). Because of major transfor-
mations in the context of work in many organiza-
tions-reduced reliance on bureaucratic controls,
increasingly decentralized decision-making au-
thority, and accelerated adaptation to changing
business conditions-the importance of OBSE to
employee and organizational effectiveness may be
on the rise (Gardner & Pierce, 1998; Pierce et al.,
We would like to thank Chad Higgins, JacksonMcAl-
lister, Marcia Miceli, Gretchen Spreitzer, Carolyn
Weithoff, and Andy Wicks for their comments on earlier
versions. In addition, we are grateful to Maureen Am-
brose and the three anonymous reviewers from this jour-
nal for their valuable assistance.
894
1993). Empirical findings show that work-based
self-esteem is associated with increased comfort
with, and sustained commitment during, radical
change (Hui & Lee, 2000; Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996)
and improved job performance when traditional
forms of work support are absent (Pierce et al.,
1993). Positive self-regard is now considered an
essential building block in human-resource-based
competitive strategies (Lawler, 1992; Pfeffer, 1998),
and OBSE has been associated with such key out-
comes as job satisfaction, organizational commit-
ment, performance, and organizational citizenship
(Pierce et al., 1989, 1993; Gardner & Pierce, 1998).
Although researchers have learned much about
the consequences and importance of OBSE over the
last ten years, there has been, in comparison, little
systematic theory-driven research on its anteced-
ents. Initial theorizing (Korman, 1970) and recent
correlational reports (e.g., Pierce et al., 1989, 1993)
have suggested that organizational context factors
influence OBSE. Korman, among the first to con-
sider the foundations for self-esteem at work,
viewed workplace self-concept as being largely so-
cially determined, grounded in social learning ex-
perience, and shaped by interactions with others
and the institutional arrangements within which
interaction takes place (Korman, 1970). Pierce and
colleagues echoed this theme: "We concur with
Korman's view that the structural features of work
environments can and do send strong messages that
shape individuals' beliefs about their organiza-
tional value" (1989: 645).
However, beyond the general consensus that or-
ganizational context affects OBSE, relatively little
is known about either which aspects of work con-
2002 McAllisterand Bigley
text are particularlyrelevant to OBSEdevelopment
and change or the psychological mechanisms
through which context brings about self-definition.
Our study investigated these two issues. Extending
the work of Korman (1970) and Pierce and col-
leagues (1989), we describe here how organiza-
tional care, an emerging concept defining central
aspects of work context, influences employees'
OBSE through the pivotal perceptions of organiza-
tional fairness and job authority. Organizational
fairness and job authority have both been impli-
cated by organizational care scholars as variables
intervening between context and self-concept, and
they have been linked, in their respective litera-
tures, to employee attributions of self-worth. We
systematically integrate them into a frameworkfor
understanding OBSE.
ORGANIZATIONAL CARE AND THE
TRANSFORMATION OF OBSE
Organizational care is a "deep structure" (cf.
Denison, 1996) of values and organizing principles
centered on fulfilling employees' needs, promoting
employees' best interests, and valuing employees'
contributions (Derry, 1999; Liedtka, 1999, 1996;
Tronto, 1998). Conceptual work on the role of an
"ethic of care" in organizations makes explicit the
connection between core organizational values of
responsiveness to member needs and members'
healthy social-psychological development (Frost,
1999; Held, 1990; Liedtka, 1999, 1996; Wicks, Gil-
bert, &Freeman, 1994), including the development
of self-esteem (Benner, 1984; Bowden, 1997). Or-
ganizational care is "growth enhancing for the
cared for in that it moves them towards the use and
development of their full capabilities within the
context of their self-defined needs and aspirations
and in service to the larger community of care"
(Liedtka, 1999: 13).
Sustained responsiveness to employee needs and
best interests in organizations requires concerted
effort from organizational representatives and the
support of a care-enabling infrastructure (Kahn,
1993; Liedtka, 1996; 1999; Tronto, 1998). Korman
(1970) identified elements of such an infrastruc-
ture, including training, support systems, and em-
ployee involvement as mechanisms for ego en-
hancement. However, from an organizational care
perspective, we understand that care cannot be eas-
ily equated with any particular configuration of
managerial and human resource practices. Equally
constructive sets of caregiving practices can exist in
different organizations, varying as a function of
factors such as basic task requirements, employee
developmental needs, resource constraints, and the
895
innovativeness of organization members (Liedtka,
1999). Furthermore,specific practice sets reflective
of organizational care may change over time in
response to shifting situational contingencies (such
as changes in employee needs or task environments).
Given the highly variable nature of ego-enhanc-
ing caregiving practices, the essence of organiza-
tional care is contained in the values and principles
that bring coherence over time and across situa-
tions to organizationalroutines and practices (Bur-
ton & Dunn, 1996; Liedtka, 1999). The emerging
literatureon people-centered and visionary compa-
nies echoes this distinction between organizational
care and its more ephemeral manifestations. Al-
though the practices of people-centered organiza-
tions vary widely, convergence and consistency re-
main regardingthe beliefs and values upon which
such programs and policies are based (O'Reilly &
Pfeffer, 2000). Similarly, Collins and Porras (1994:
90) have separated core ideology from specific
noncore practices:
A visionarycompanycarefullypreservesand pro-
tects its core ideology,yet all the specificmanifes-
tationsof its coreideologymustbe open forchange
and evolution.For example... HP's 'Respectand
concernfor individualemployees'is a permanent
unchangingpart of its core ideology;servingfruit
and doughnutsto all employeesat ten A.M. each
day is a noncorepracticethat can change... 3M's
'Respectfor individualinitiative'is a permanent,
unchangingpartof its coreideology;the 15 percent
rule (wheretechnicalemployeescan spend 15 per-
cent of theirtime on projectsof theirchoosing)is a
noncorepracticethatcan change.
We should note that organizational care is simi-
lar in important respects to perceived organiza-
tional support (POS), which refers to employees'
"global beliefs concerning the extent to which the
organizationvalues general contributions and cares
about their well-being" (Eisenberger, Huntington,
Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986: 51). However, although
organizationalcare and POS have similar content-
organizationalsupport of and care for employees-
they exist at different levels of analysis. POS is an
individual-level phenomenon, representing the
perceived, individualized receipt of support (or
care) from an organization. It is egocentric in na-
ture, expressed in terms of a belief about the extent
to which the organization cares for "me." In con-
trast, organizational care is an organization-level
and organization-centered phenomenon reflecting
perceptions regarding the broad provision of care
by the organization to all employees. It captures
beliefs about the extent to which the organization
cares for employees in general. Thus, as conceptu-
896 Academy of Management Journal
alized here, organizational care is the organization-
level equivalent of perceived organizational support.
In keeping with Korman's (1970) initial insights,
in our model we propose that organizational con-
text affects employee self-esteem at work. Distin-
guishing our research, however, is a focus on the
underlying values and principles of organizational
care that help bring concordance to various human
resource policies and programs and also promote
responsive and coherent adaptations of them over
time. Our argument is that the consistent enact-
ment of practices expressing an employee-need-
centered focus provides the integrated experiential
base upon which employee beliefs about self-
worth, including organization-based self-esteem,
develop.
We have argued that organizational care is re-
lated to OBSE. However, the critical question of our
study remains: What are the psychological mecha-
nisms linking organizational care with an employ-
ee's assessment or reassessment of self-concept in
terms of self-worth as an organization member?
One important way in which people form self-
concepts is through inferences drawn from how
others (including individuals, groups, and organi-
zations) treat them (Cooley, 1902; James, 1890;
Mead, 1934; Rosenberg, 1979). This basic idea of
"reflected appraisal" is foundational to sociological
theories of the self (Gecas, 1982), and it has been
extended to describe more fully how members' per-
ceptions of treatment within groups and organiza-
tions influence their understandings of who they
are (e.g., Brockner, 1988; Tyler, Kramer, & John,
1999). Fairness (Tyler & Lind, 1992) and job author-
ity (range of discretion and influence; Pierce et al.,
1989; Schwalbe, 1985; Van de Ven & Ferry, 1980)
are highly salient signals employees use to deter-
mine the degree to which they are valued by their
organizations. We argue that fairness and job au-
thority represent for employees crucial reflected
appraisals on the part of the organization that me-
diate between organizational care and OBSE.
Effects of Organizational Care on OBSE through
Perceived Organizational Fairness
Employees in organizations see themselves as
fairly treated when they believe they have received,
or will receive, what they are entitled to or deserve
(Tyler, 1989). Management scholars and social psy-
chologists alike readily acknowledge that the stan-
dards of fair treatment individuals use in continu-
ing relationships extend well beyond the perceived
equitability of material reward distributions to mat-
ters of perceived responsiveness to need, the integ-
rity of decision-making processes, and the appro-
October
priateness of interpersonal treatment (Bies & Moag,
1986; Deutsch, 1975; Konovsky, 2000). Accord-
ingly, a caring value system-centered on fulfilling
employees' needs and attending to employees' best
interests-can be expected to shape organizational
practices, programs, and managerial behaviors so
that the various fairness standards employees use
are met over a range of fairness domains (such as
rewards and punishments, formal procedures, and
informal interpersonal treatment) and organiza-
tional issues (such as compensation, performance
evaluation, and promotion) (Burton & Dunn, 1996;
Liedtka, 1996). Thus, we would expect organiza-
tional care to be positively related to perceived
organizational fairness.
Perceived organizational fairness, in turn, is ex-
pected to influence OBSE. Fairness assessments are
particularly important to employees because expe-
rienced fairness is a highly salient indicator of an
individual's status in, and therefore value to, an
organization (Tyler & Lind, 1992). For example,
individuals consistently treated more poorly than
they think they deserve over a broad range of or-
ganizational issues (for instance, they consider
their pay or promotion rate to be disproportionately
low) and fairness domains (for instance, the pro-
cess used to produce reward distributions is con-
sistently less respectful than they expected it to be)
are likely to incorporate these reflected appraisals,
which indicate they are not highly valued, into
their self-concepts by decreasing personal assess-
ments of their worth at work (Brockner, 1988). Fur-
ther, such self-redefinition may be more likely to
occur when a major inconsistency between treat-
ment quality and OBSE level generates significant
cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). Empirical
findings from both cross-sectional field studies
(Wiesenfeld, Brockner, & Thibault, 2000) and con-
trolled experiments (Koper, Van Knippenberg,
Bouhuijs, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1993) indicate that
fairness perceptions are associated with OBSE and
context-specific self-esteem. We should emphasize
that our focus is on organizational fairness in gen-
eral, since treatment quality differing from what
one believes is deserved in a variety of specific
work situations strongly suggests that self-redefini-
tion may be in order.
In summary, we predict organizational care will
influence OBSE through perceived organizational
fairness. Organizations emphasizing employee de-
velopment and well-being are likely to be per-
ceived as fair in a wide variety of justice domains.
Perceived fair treatment, in turn, conveys to em-
ployees that they are valued and worthy organiza-
tion members. In turn, these reflected appraisals
2002 McAllister and Bigley
are likely to be incorporated into OBSE. Thus, we
hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1. Perceived organizational fair-
ness positively mediates the positive relation-
ship between organizational care and organi-
zation-based self-esteem.
Given the similarity of organizational care and
perceived organizational support, it may seem that
Hypothesis 1 runs counter to existing research sug-
gesting procedural justice is an antecedent of POS
(Masterson,Lewis, Goldman, &Taylor, 2000; Moor-
man, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998). Yet, because or-
ganizational care (an organization-level construct)
is distinct from POS (an individual-level con-
struct), no contradiction is implied. Organizational
care is a likely antecedent of POS, and justice may
mediate this relationship.
Effects of Organizational Care on OBSE through
Job Authority
Just as we expect perceived organizational fair-
ness to mediate the relationship between organiza-
tional care and OBSE,we also expect perceived job
authorityto mediate this relationship. Jobauthority
refers to the amount of discretion and influence
employees believe they can exercise in decisions
about the work they do (Van de Ven &Ferry, 1980).
Rather than creating enduring dependence, care-
takers in effectual caring relationships work to nur-
ture those for whom they care, working to develop
contributing community members (Held, 1990;
Liedtka, 1999; Tronto, 1998). Similarly, caring or-
ganizations are likely to place particular emphasis
on employee development, to promote the confi-
dence and skill employees need to exercise discre-
tion and, thus, to use external controls sparingly
(Korman,1970; Pierce et al., 1989). In other words,
caring organizations cultivate empowerment-capa-
ble employees and provide them with job authority
commensurate with their capabilities. Further, as
these capabilities increase, greaterjob authority can
be forthcoming (Liedtka, 1999).
Job authority is, then, expected to influence
OBSE.The degree of constraint built into jobs rep-
resents a major source of information employees
use to develop beliefs about themselves at work
(Pierce et al., 1989). Organizationally imposed be-
havior controls that reduce job authority are likely
to signal to employees that they are incapable of
self-direction and self-control-that they are less
trusted, less competent, less valuable, and less con-
tributing individuals (Pierce et al., 1989). As re-
flected appraisals, suppositions such as these may
be incorporated into self-concept through reduced
897
self-esteem. Conversely, increased job authority
can provide a basis for a positive view of self-that
is, a view of oneself as being trusted, competent,
valuable, and contributing-leading to increased
self-esteem. Empirical findings are consistent with
this view, showing strong links between systemic
constraints on job authority (mechanistic organiza-
tional structures) and OBSE (Pierce et al., 1989),
between professional discretion and self-esteem at
work (Schlenker & Gutek, 1987), and between au-
tonomy and OBSE (Aryee & Luk, 1996).
Summarizing,we argue that caring organizations
develop employees capable of exercising decision-
making discretion in their jobs and then empower
them accordingly through increased job authority.
Further, we expect job authority, like fairness, to
convey that employees are valued, an attribution
likely to be incorporatedinto self-conceptin terms of
higher levels of OBSE.Accordingly,we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2. Perceived job authority posi-
tively mediates the positive relationship be-
tween organizational care and organization-
based self-esteem.
METHODS
Sample and Procedures
Our sample consisted of managers and profes-
sionals from a broad range of organizations and
industries. Students and alumni of a major South-
ern Californiaexecutive MBA programparticipated
in this study together with their peers from work.
Each student or alumnus was asked to identify two
work peers and a supervisory person (someone fa-
miliar with the work performance of all three indi-
viduals) to participate in the study with them.
Nominated peers were individuals from functional
areas different from their own but with whom they
had significant work-related interaction. Initial
contacts and nominated peers participated in the
study as separate respondents. All surveys were
hand-distributed and returned directly to the re-
searcher (the first author) by mail. Of 240 surveys
distributed to students, alumni, and nominated
peers, 186 usable surveys were returned (a 78 per-
cent response rate). Respondents provided data on
OBSE, organizational fairness, job authority, and
peer reputational effectiveness (a control variable).
Respondents were mature (38 years old on the av-
erage), well educated (57 percent had some gradu-
ate training), experienced (the average professional
tenure was 11.7 years), and predominantly men
(74.7%).
In addition to the self-report surveys from focal
subjects, we obtained assessments of organizational
898 Academy of ManagementJournal
care in each organizationalsetting from individuals
familiar with the work performance of the study
participants (in most cases, their immediate super-
visors). Use of informant data allowed us to
overcome the significant limitations commonly
associated with common method variance. Key in-
formants are frequently used in multiorganization
studies to provide organization-specific data (Ku-
mar, Stern, & Anderson, 1993; Seidler, 1974), a
practice conditioned on their knowledge and will-
ingness to provide information (Campbell, 1955).
In this study, the supervisors were uniquely posi-
tioned to know about organizational care, because
they had insider perspectives on organizational
values and organizingprinciples, as well as knowl-
edge of the study respondents; further, to varying
degrees, they participatedin the actual provision of
care to respondents. The high response rate of the
supervisory individuals (69 of 80 surveys were re-
turned, for an 86 percent response rate) suggests
little informantapprehension about providing care-
related information. Individuals in direct contact
with study participants have been shown to be
more knowledgeable than higher-level executives
of the specific organizational values shaping these
employees' treatment (Osterman, 1994) and less
inclined than human resource executives to over-
state the virtues of organizationalpolicies and prac-
tices (Wright, McMahan, Snell, & Gerhart, 2001).
Following recommendations from Miller, Cardinal,
and Glick (1997), we protected the integrity of in-
formant responses by requesting frank responses,
focusing on current conditions rather than retro-
spective accounts, using established measures with
sound psychometric properties, providing assur-
ances of anonymity, having informants mail com-
pleted forms directly to the researcher, and main-
taining transparencyin the data collection process
(providing contact information for accessing the
researcher directly). Potential response biases re-
main-these might include overestimation (making
the organization look good) and underestimation
(expressing frustrationin the lack of organizational
support for personal caring initiatives)-but the
multiorganizational design of the study (69 busi-
ness units spanning 63 different organizations)pro-
vides a practical constraint on the extent to which
any individual informant could systematically bias
the study results.
Measures
All measures were drawn from previously pub-
lished research. For each measure, respondents as-
sessed their agreement with statements on a seven
point Likert-type scale on a response format rang-
October
ing from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 7 ("strongly
agree"). Reliability assessments for all scales ex-
ceeded the minimum standard of .70 suggested by
Nunnally (1978).
Dependent variable. Organization-based self-
esteem was assessed using the ten-item instrument
validated by Pierce et al. (1989). Two sample items
are "I am valuable around here" and "I count
around here" (a = .92).
Independent variables. Organizationalcare was
adapted from Eisenberger's16-item measure of per-
ceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al.,
1986). Items were rephrased to capture supervisor-
as-informantassessments of the organization'scare
for its employees. Sample items include, "The or-
ganization strongly considers the goals and values
of these employees," "The organization is willing
to help any of these employees when they need a
special favor," and "The organization shows very
little concern for these employees" (reverse-coded).
This measure incorporates elements central to or-
ganizational care-caring about employees, taking
care of employees, and valuing employee contribu-
tions (a = .88). Organizational fairness was mea-
sured with eight items that assess the distributional
and procedural fairness of performanceevaluation,
pay, job change, and voice (Tsui, Pearce, Porter, &
Tripoli, 1997). Sample items include, "The process
used to conduct my performance appraisal is fair"
and "The rating or evaluation I received on my last
performance appraisal was fair" (a = .90). Job au-
thority was measured with four items addressing
the extent of authority, initiative, discretion, and
control found in work (Van de Ven & Ferry, 1980).
Sample items include, "The person in this role
personally determines what tasks (s)he will per-
form from day to day" and "Individuals in this role
have authority to set quotas for how much work
they must complete" (a = .74).
Control variable. A peer assessment of reputa-
tional effectiveness was included in the study as an
indicator of competence, which might represent an
alternative predictor of self-esteem. We used Tsui's
three-item measure of reputational effectiveness
(Tsui, 1984), together with one additional item in-
corporated into McAllister (1995). Peers were
asked to consider their colleagues' total jobs, in-
cluding job-specific duties, additional activities not
formally required, and overall dependability, and
to assess their satisfaction with aspects of the target
individuals' job performance. Sample items in-
clude, "Overall,to what extent do you feel that this
person is performinghis/her total job the way you
would like it to be performed?"and "To what ex-
tent has this person met all of your expectations in
his/her roles and responsibilities?" (a = .95).
2002
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlationsa
Variable Mean
1. Organization-based self-esteem 5.88
2. Organizational care 5.10
3. Perceived organizational fairness 4.61
4. Perceived job authority 5.49
5. Reputational effectiveness 5.00
n = 186. Items in parentheses are Cronbach alphas: The first value is for scales, and the second value is for composites. Correlations
a
were computed by the EQS program using the measurement model.
p < .10
* p < .05
**p < .01
Analysis
We adopted a two-step approach to data analysis
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) using the EQS struc-
tural equation modeling program (Bentler, 1995).
First, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis
to evaluate measurement model adequacy. Given
the large number of items (41) relative to the sam-
ple size (n = 186), we took steps to reduce the
number of construct indicators and improve the
size-to-estimator ratio (e.g., Landis, Beal, &Tesluk,
2000). For constructs with four or fewer indicators
(job authority and reputational effectiveness), we
used the individual items as observed indicators of
the latent constructs. For all other multi-item con-
structs (organizationalcare, organizationalfairness,
and OBSE), we created three "composite" indica-
tors following procedures set out by Mathieu and
Farr (1991).
Second, we analyzed the structuralmodel of the
hypothesized relationships (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). Hypothesized mediation effects were as-
sessed in accordance with standards outlined by
Baron and Kenny (1986). Baron and Kenny speci-
fied three conditions that must be satisfied in order
to infer mediation: (1) the independent variable
must be significantly related to the dependent vari-
able in the absence of the mediator, (2) the inde-
pendent variable must be significantly related to
the mediator, and (3) when both the independent
variable and the mediator are considered simulta-
neously, the direct relationship between the inde-
pendent variable and the dependent variable
should either decrease significantly (for partial me-
diation) or become nonsignificant (for full media-
tion). Baron and Kenny's conditions require a si-
multaneous assessment of the significance of direct
and indirect relationships between independent
and dependent variables. Therefore,we partitioned
the total effects of the independent variable on the
dependent variable into direct and indirect compo-
McAllister and Bigley 899
TABLE 1
s.d. 1 2 3 4 5
0.85 (.92/.92)
0.97 .23** (.88/.88)
1.25 .39** .21** (.90/.91)
0.98 .28** .36** .19* (.74/n.a.)
1.40 .01 .13t .16* -.04 (.95/n.a.)
nents (cf. Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). In our de-
composition-of-effects analysis, a significant indi-
rect effect indicates that the mediators significantly
reduce the direct effect of the independent variable
on the dependent variable.
Results
All measurement model factor loadings were sig-
nificant at the p < .01 level. A chi-square of 122.15
on 109 degrees of freedom (p = .18) and other
goodness-of-fit statistics (CFI = .99, NNFI = .99,
GFI = .93, RMSEA = .03) indicated that the hy-
pothesized factor structure fitted the data well.1
Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and cor-
relations for the measurement model are shown in
Table 1. Composite reliabilities all exceed the .70
minimum standard (Nunnally, 1978).
The structuralmodel used to test our hypotheses
is depicted in Figure 1. We predicted that organi-
zational care would be related to OBSEthrough job
authority (Hypothesis 1) and fairness (Hypothesis
2). Consistent with Baron and Kenny's first require-
ment for mediation, organizational care was signif-
icantly associated with OBSE in the absence of
mediator variables (r = .23, p < .01, in Table 1). In
accordance with Baron and Kenny's second re-
quirement, organizationalcare was significantly as-
sociated with both job authority and fairness per-
ceptions. As reported in Figure 1, the path
coefficient from organizationalcare to job authority
was .36 (p < .01) and the path coefficient from
organizational care to organizational fairness was
.23 (p < .01). Finally, consistent with Baron and
Kenny's third requirement,organizationalcare was
not significantly associated with OBSE in the pr-
1 "CFI"is the comparativefit index; "NNFI"is the non-
index;and
normedfit index;"GFI"is the goodness-of-fit
"RMSEA" errorof approximation.
is the root-mean-square
900 Academy of Management Journal October

FIGURE1
Final Model Predicting Organization-Based Self-Esteema

x2(df) = 131.81(113)
X2/df = 1.17
CFI = .99
NNFI = .99
GFI = .93
RMSEA = .03

a
Path coefficients are standardized, maximum-likelihood estimates. Ellipses denote latent factors. The dashed ellipse and line represent
the control factor and its path. To simplify the presentation, the measurement model and the disturbance error effects are not shown. n =
186. The indirect effect of leader-assessed organizational care on organization-based self-esteem has a coefficient of .14**
tp < .10
* p < .05
**
p < .01

esience of mediator variables (b = .09, n.s.). How-
ever, the indirect effects of organizational care on
OBSE were substantial and significant (b = .14, p <
.01). Finally, as Figure 1 shows, the control variable
(reputational effectiveness) did not have a statisti-
cally significant effect on OBSE. Taken together,
the findings provide support for both Hypothesis 1
and Hypothesis 2.
DISCUSSION
Our study investigated how work context leads
to employee self-definition or self-redefinition. We
demonstrated that organizational care is a funda-
mental contextual source of OBSE. Employees
working for organizations possessing values and
organizing principles centered on fulfilling em-
ployee needs and acting in employee best interests
reported higher OBSElevels. Further,we hypothe-
sized and found that the relationship between work
context and self-esteem is indirect, mediated by
organizational fairness and job authority percep-
tions. Organizationalfairness and job authority ap-
pear to represent for employees highly salient re-
flected appraisalsfrom organizationsthat employees
internalize through assessment or reassessment of
their own worth as organizationmembers. Here we
addresskey implications of our researchfindings.
First and foremost, our findings provide insight
into the psychological mechanisms through which
work context influences employee OBSE.Prior re-
search on OBSE antecedents has offered neither a
substantive theoretical rationale for the proposed
cross-level relationship between context and self-
concept nor insight into the psychological pro-
cesses involved. Over a decade ago, Brockner
(1988) argued that psychological states evoked by
the treatment individuals experience are more
proximal antecedents of self-esteem at work than
contextual factors, and that reflected appraisal is
"perhapsthe most straightforwardprocess mediat-
ing employees' self-esteem" (1988: 140). Our find-
ings support this view. Organizationalfairness and
job authority perceptions were shown to mediate
the relationship between organizational care and
OBSE,and the form of this mediation is consistent
2002 McAllister and Bigley
with the understanding of fairness and job author-
ity as reflected appraisals that inform assessments
of self-worth.
Second, our conceptualization of work context
brings specificity and parsimony to models of
OBSE antecedents. Prior research (Korman, 1970)
identified disparate organizational practices (train-
ing and performance management programs, em-
ployee counseling, job rotation, and so forth) that
might influence employee self-worth assessments.
However, an almost infinite number of these prac-
tices could possibly affect OBSE.Furthermore,dif-
ferent configurations of practices could conceiv-
ably lead to similar OBSE levels. Our focus on the
more stable underlying values and principles that
produce coherence in employee-treatment across
individuals and over time (that is, organizational
care) appears more conducive to systematic, empir-
ical study of the relationship of organizationalcon-
text to organization-based self-esteem than prior
approaches.
A third contribution of our study is that it ex-
tends research on organizational care and helps to
bring the concept into more mainstream organiza-
tion sciences. Interest in the idea of care in social
and organizational settings now spans 20 years
(Derry, 1999; Gilligan, 1982; Liedtka, 1999; Wicks
et al., 1994). However, this work has been almost
exclusively conceptual (and critical) in nature. Our
operational measure of organizational care, along
with the empirical support for key relationships
suggested by the organizationalcare literature,may
open the door for furtherempirical research on the
antecedents and consequences of organizational
care.
The organizational care concept merits consider-
ation in mainstream organization science research,
especially the work on people-centered organiza-
tions. It emphasizes human development as an or-
ganizational imperative independent of concern for
profit or competitive advantage. Thus, it makes the
connection between organizationalcontext and the
development of employee self-concept, a relation-
ship central to our study, much more explicit than
the highly related work on people-centered organi-
zations (e.g., Pfeffer, 1998). More generally, the
organizational care literature highlights the non-
contractual and communal aspects of human or-
ganization. Recent empirical findings suggest that,
beyond acknowledged instrumental and strategic
considerations, organizations may adopt people-
centered practices specifically because they hold
concern for employees as a central organizational
value (Osterman, 1994). Indeed, to the extent that
the focus of research extends beyond legitimating
people-centered practices on strategic and compet-
901
itive grounds to more fully understanding the dy-
namics of employee-organization relations in gen-
eral, consideration of the role and impact of values
such as organizational care, as a complement to
instrumental values, appears indispensable (Held,
1990; Mansbridge, 1990).
Limitations and Future Research
Our findings should be considered in light of
several limitations. It is difficult to fully substanti-
ate causal arguments with cross-sectional data.
However, and as discussed, the hypothesized rela-
tionships between organizationaljustice and OBSE
and between job authority and OBSEare supported
by findings from either controlled experiments or
longitudinal studies, which both permit stronger
causal inference. In addition, different sources pro-
vided data on organizationalcare and OBSEin our
study. It seems unlikely that employee perceptions
of organizational fairness, experienced job author-
ity, and appraisals of self-worth influenced super-
visory informant reports on organizational care.
Still, longitudinal or experimental research is
needed to test our model before we can have com-
plete confidence in the findings.
Our work also raises issues about the possible
effects of constructs not included in this study. In
particular, global self-esteem and POS warrant at-
tention. Global self-esteem and OBSEare correlated
constructs (Jex & Elaqua, 1999; Pierce et al., 1989),
and one possible approach to the study of global
self-esteem is to view it as a personality trait that is
relatively unsusceptible to change in adults. Our
model may be underspecified insofar as global self-
esteem, as a highly stable trait, is modeled as an
OBSE antecedent. However, most recent research
(including longitudinal studies of adolescents and
mature adults) on the relationship of global self-
esteem to facet-specific self-esteem (including
OBSE)suggests that global self-esteem is a mallea-
ble aspect of self-concept (e.g., Marsh & Yeung,
1999; Morse & Gergen, 1970) that stems from con-
text-specific components (Reitzes, Mutran,Fernan-
dez, 1996; Rosenberg, Schooler, Schoenbach, &
Rosenberg, 1995). Brockner (1988) and Tharenou
(1979) further suggested that global self-esteem
may moderate the effects of social context on
OBSE. If this is the case, the associations we re-
ported may be understated for individuals with low
global self-esteem and overstated for individuals
high on this aspect of self-concept. Thus, future
research on the organizational context-OBSE rela-
tionship might benefit from modeling global self-
esteem as a moderator.
Previous research has shown that perceived or-
902 Academy of ManagementJournal
ganizational support can be an outcome of procedural
justice perceptions, but we did not include it as an
additional mediator in our study for two main rea-
sons. First, our objective was to predict organization-
based self-esteem. Although organizational fairness
and job authority have both received theoretical and
empirical support as OBSE antecedents, we were
unable to locate a single study that attempted to
model POS in the same manner. Second, standard
measurements of OBSE and POS appear too closely
related to warrant inclusion in the same study. That
is, the appraisals of employees that they are valu-
able, trusted, and cared about in their organizations
(OBSE) go hand-in-hand with their appraisals that
the organization values, trusts, and cares about them
(POS). Current conceptualizations and measurements
of these two constructs do not appear to allow schol-
ars to distinguish adequately between them. Future
research attempting to improve the explanatory
power of our model through the inclusion of POS as
an additional link between organizational fairness
and OBSE will have to demonstrate that POS and
OBSE are conceptually distinct and devise measures
permitting support of this distinction.
Although we believe supervisors, whom we used
here as our source of information about organiza-
tional care, are a useful source of such information,
this approach does not permit an evaluation of the
shared aspects of the core values that comprise
organizational care. As an organization-level phe-
nomenon, perceptions of organizational care
should be shared among employees and supervi-
sors alike. Therefore, our findings are best viewed
as an initial empirical test of our theoretical frame-
work that merits replication using multiple respon-
dents to assess organizational care.
Finally, the finding that reputational effective-
ness was not a statistically significant control vari-
able merits further attention. Perhaps competence is
not a basis of OBSE. Alternatively, basic perceptual
and attributional biases (for instance, self-serving bias
or fundamental attribution error) may render reputa-
tional effectiveness a poor proxy for competence.
Thus, it seems necessary that the effects of compe-
tence on OBSE be further investigated in research
using different measures of competence.
Conclusion
These limitations notwithstanding, our cross-
level study provides insight into how organiza-
tional context may influence employee self-
concept. It highlights the central role of organiza-
tional fairness and job authority as psychological
mechanisms that, through a process of reflected
appraisal, mediate the relationship between organ-
October
izational care as a facet of organizational context
and employee articulations of themselves as or-
ganization members. The model proposed and
tested is intended as a framework for continued
research on the foundations of organization-based
self-esteem.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. 1988. Structural equation
models in practice:A review and recommendedtwo-
step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411-
423.
Aryee, S., &Luk, V. 1996. Workand nonwork influences
on the career satisfaction of dual-earner couples.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49: 38-52.
Baron,R. M., &Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-medi-
ator variable distinction in social psychological re-
search: Conceptual, strategic and statistical consid-
erations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.
Benner, P. E. 1984. From novice to expert. Menlo Park,
CA: Addison-Wesley.
Bentler, P. M. 1995. EQS structural equations program
manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Bies, R. J., &Moag, J. S. 1986. Interactionaljustice: Com-
munication criteria of fairness. Research on Nego-
tiation in Organizations, 1: 43-55.
Bowden, P. 1997. Caring: Gender-sensitive ethics. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Brockner,J. 1988. Self-esteem at work. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Burton, B. K., & Dunn, C. P. 1996. Feminist ethics as
moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 6: 133-147.
Campbell, D. T. 1955. The informant in quantitative re-
search. American Journal of Sociology, 60: 339-
342.
Collins, J. C., &Porras,J. I. 1994. Built to last. New York:
HarperCollins.
Cooley, C. H. 1902. Human nature and the social order.
New York:Scribner.
Denison, D. R. 1996. What is the difference between
organizationalculture and organizationalclimate? A
native's point of view on a decade of paradigmwars.
Academy of Management Review, 21: 619-654.
Derry, R. 1999. The mother-child paradigmand its rele-
vance to the workplace. Business and Society, 38:
217-225.
Deutsch, M. 1975. Equity, equality and need: What de-
termines which value will be used as the basis of
distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31:
137-149.
2002 McAllisterand Bigley
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa,
D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 71: 500-507.
Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Frost, P. J. 1999. Why compassion counts! Journal of
Management Inquiry, 8: 127-134.
Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. 1998. Self-esteem and
self-efficacy within the organizational context.
Group and Organization Management, 23: 48-70.
Gecas, V. 1982. The self concept. In A. Inkeles (Ed.),
Annual review of sociology, vol. 8: 1-33. Palo Alto,
CA: Annual Reviews.
Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Held, V. 1990. Mothering versus contract. In J. Mans-
bridge (Ed.), Beyond self-interest: 287-304. Chica-
go: University of Chicago Press.
Hui, C., & Lee, C. 2000. Moderating effects of organiza-
tion based self-esteem on organizational uncertainty:
Employee response relationships. Journal of Man-
agement, 26: 215-232.
James, W. 1890. The principles of psychology. New
York: Holt.
Jex, S. M., & Elaqua, T. C. 1999. Self-esteem as a moder-
ator: A comparison of global and organization-based
measures. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 72: 71-81.
Kahn, W. 1993. Caring for the caregivers: Patterns of
organizational caregiving. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 38: 539-563.
Konovsky, M. A. 2000. Understanding procedural justice
and its impact on business organizations. Journal of
Management, 26: 489-511.
Koper, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Bouhuijs, F., Vermunt,
R., & Wilke, H. 1993. Procedural fairness and self-
esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23:
313-325.
Korman, A. 1970. Toward a hypothesis of work behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 54: 31-41.
Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. 1993. Conduct-
ing interorganizational research using key infor-
mants. Academy of Management Journal, 36:
1633-1651.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. 2000. A compar-
ison of approaches to forming composite measures
in structural equation models. Organizational Re-
search Methods, 3: 186-207.
Lawler, E. E. 1992. The ultimate advantage. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Liedtka, J. 1996. Feminist morality and competitive real-
ity: A role for an ethic of care? Business Ethics
Quarterly, 6: 179-200.
903
Liedtka, J. 1999. Linking competitive advantage with
communities of practice. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 8: 5-16.
Mansbridge, J. (Ed.). 1990. Beyond self interest. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. 1999. The liability of
psychological ratings: The chameleon effect in
global self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 25: 49-64.
Masterson, S. M., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor,
M. S. 2000. Integrating justice and social exchange:
The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment
on work relationships. Academy of Management
Journal, 43: 738-748.
Mathieu, J. E., & Farr, J. L. 1991. Further evidence for the
discriminant validity of measures of organizational
commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 127-133.
McAllister, D. J. 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust
as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in or-
ganizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38:
24-59.
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, self, and society. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Miller, C. C., Cardinal, L. B., & Glick, W. H. 1997. Retro-
spective reports in organizational research: A reex-
amination of recent evidence. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 40: 189-204.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. 1998.
Does perceived organizational support mediate the
relationship between procedural justice and organi-
zational citizenship behavior? Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 41: 351-357.
Morse, S. J., & Gergen, K. J. 1970. Social comparison,
self-consistency, and the concept of self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 16: 148-156.
Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Pfeffer, J. 2000. Hidden value. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Osterman, P. 1994. How common is workplace transfor-
mation and who adopts it? Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 47: 173-188.
Pfeffer, J. 1998. The human equation. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham,
R. B. 1989. Organization-based self-esteem: Con-
struct definition, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 32: 622-648.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Dunham, R. B., & Cummings,
L. L. 1993. Moderation by organization-based self-
esteem of role condition-employee response rela-
tionships. Academy of Management Journal, 36:
271-288.
904 Academy of ManagementJournal
Reitzes, D. C., Mutran, E. J., & Fernandez, M. E. 1996.
Pre-retirement influences on postretirement self-
esteem. Journals of Gerontology, Series B-Psycho-
logical Sciences and Social Sciences, 51: S242-
S249.
Rosenberg, M. 1979. Conceiving the self. New York:
Basic Books.
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosen-
berg, F. 1995. Global self-esteem and specific self-
esteem: Different concepts, different outcome.
American Sociological Review, 60: 141-156.
Schlenker, J. A., & Gutek, B. A. 1987. Effects of role loss
on work-related attitudes. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 72: 287-293.
Schwalbe, M. L. 1985. Autonomy in work and self-
esteem. Sociological Quarterly, 26: 519-535.
Seidler, J. 1974. On using informants: A technique for
collecting quantitative data and controlling measure-
ment error in organizational analysis. American So-
ciological Review, 39: 816-831.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. 1996. Empowering mid-
dle managers to be transformational leaders. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 32: 237-261.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 1996. Using multivar-
iate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.
Tharenou, P. 1979. Employee self-esteem: A review of
the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15:
316-346.
Tronto, J. C. 1998. An ethic of care. Generations, 22(3):
15-20.
Tsui, A. S. 1984. A role set analysis of managerial repu-
tation. Organizational Behavior and Human Per-
formance, 34: 64-96.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M.
1997. Alternative approaches to the employee-
organization relationship: Does investment in em-
ployees pay off? Academy of Management Journal,
40: 1089-1121.
Tyler, T. R. 1989. The psychology of procedural justice:
October
A test of the group value model. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 57: 333-344.
Tyler, T. R., Kramer, R. M., &John, O. P. (Eds.). 1999. The
psychology of the social self. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. 1992. A relational model of
authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology, vol. 25: 115-195.
New York: Academic Press.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. 1980. Measuring and
assessing organizations. New York: Wiley.
Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. R., & Freeman, R. E. 1994. A
feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 4: 475-498.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Brockner, J., & Thibault, V. 2000.
Procedural fairness, managers' self-esteem, and man-
agerial behaviors following a layoff. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83: 1-32.
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., Snell, S. A., & Gerhart, B.
2001. Comparing line and HR executives' perceptions
of HR effectiveness: Services, roles, and contributions.
Human Resource Management, 40: 111-123.
Daniel J. McAllister (bizdjm@nus.edu.sg) is a visiting
associate professor at the National University of Singa-
pore. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Cali-
fornia, Irvine. His research interests are centered on the
social or relational foundations of workplace attitudes
and behavior, including trust and distrust, commitment,
and citizenship behavior.
Gregory A. Bigley is an assistant professor of human
resource management and organizational behavior at the
University of Washington. He received his Ph.D. from the
University of California, Irvine. His research interests
focus on trust, motivation, leadership, and the social-
psychological foundations of high-reliability/high-
performance organizing.
As