10.1177/1059601104265054 ArticleGROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENTFoley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE Perceptions of Discrimination and Justice ARE THERE GENDER DIFFERENCES IN OUTCOMES? SHARON FOLEY Drexel University NGO HANG-YUE The Chinese University of Hong Kong ANGELA WONG The Chinese University of Hong Kong This article examines the relationship among perceived gender discrimination, organizational justice, and work-related attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and inten- tions to leave) for a sample of Protestant clergy in Hong Kong. The moderating role of gender on the relationship is also explored. The results of regression analysis showed that (a) justice and discrimination perceptions were significantly related to job attitudes; (b) compared to men, women who perceived more gender discrimination had a lower level of organizational commit- ment; (c) compared to women, men who perceived more distributive justice had a higher level of job satisfaction; and (d) perceptions of justice influenced intentions to leave through their impact on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Keywords: gender discrimination; organizational justice; job attitudes; gender differences During the past decade, increasing research attention has been paid to per- ceived injustice and discrimination in management literature. Both per- ceived injustice and perceived discrimination are found to be associated with some negative outcomes. For example, perceived procedural injustice has been positively linked to retaliation against the organization (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997); perceived distributive injustice has been positively linked to Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sharon Foley, Department of Management, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, 19104; e-mail: sf46@drexel.edu. Group & Organization Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, August 2005 421-450 DOI: 10.1177/1059601104265054 © 2005 Sage Publications 421 employee theft (Greenberg, 1990); and perceived gender discrimination has been positively linked to work conflict (Gutek, Cohen, & Tsui, 1996). Although one published study focused on both perceived ethnic discrimi- nation and perceptions of distributive justice (Foley, Kidder, & Powell, 2002), few studies have examined perceived gender discrimination, proce- dural justice, and distributive justice together in one model, particularly in a non-Western setting. In addition, in the studies that have focused on gen- der differences in the reactions to justice or discrimination, the results from these studies have been mixed (Lee & Farh, 1999; Ngo, Tang, & Au, 2002; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). In the present study, we relate individuals’ perceived gender discrimina- tion, procedural justice, and distributive justice to their reactions to the job and to the organization, and we examine the moderating role of gender on these relationships in a non-Western setting. The purpose of this study is fourfold: (a) to provide a theoretical framework that links perceptions of jus- tice and gender discrimination to several salient job attitudes (i.e., job satis- faction, organizational commitment, and intentions to leave); (b) to extend the current literature by testing several new hypotheses about the moderating role of gender; (c) to test the mediating effect of work-related attitudes on the relationship between justice or discrimination perceptions and intentions to leave the organization; and (d) to assess the generalizability of research find- ings in Western settings by employing a non-Western sample. We examine the reactions of Protestant clergy in Hong Kong to perceptions of justice and gender discrimination. Similar to other professional occupations, the clergy has been male- dominated and male-controlled (Bock, 1967; McDuff & Mueller, 2002). There is clear evidence that female clergy experience inferior work condi- tions and suffer from workplace inequalities (Chang, 2000; McDuff, 2001; Nesbitt, 1996; Schneider & Schneider, 1997). The present study adds to the management literature by examining the outcomes of perceptions of gender discrimination and justice for professional workers. Also, using samples from other countries allows us to see whether American management theo- ries, which reflect American culture, are transferable to other countries (Hofstede, 1993). We apply theories from social psychology including social identity theory, social comparison, relative deprivation, and gender-role the- ory. Based on gender-role theory, we propose that men react more strongly to perceived justice in the workplace and women react more strongly to per- ceived gender discrimination. Attention to these matters is important for organizations concerned about attracting and retaining professionals of both genders. 422 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW PERCEIVED GENDER DISCRIMINATION AND SOCIAL COMPARISONS Gender discrimination is said to occur when personnel decisions are based on gender, an ascribed characteristic, rather than on an individual’s qualifications or job performance (Gutek et al., 1996; Ngo et al., 2002). Per- ceived discrimination is an individual’s perception that he or she is treated differently or unfairly because of his or her group membership (Sanchez & Brock, 1996). One’s identity group may include individuals with similar demographic characteristics, such as ethnicity, gender, or age (Ensher, Grant-Vallone, & Donaldson, 2001). When individuals perceive gender dis- crimination, they believe that members of their sex are systematically disad- vantaged at work relative to the other sex (Gutek et al., 1996). In assessing whether they are experiencing gender discrimination, indi- viduals often use social comparisons. Social comparisons provide informa- tion about what types of outcomes and/or treatments, such as salary increases or promotions, it is possible to achieve (Major, 1994). Collective relative deprivation refers to the grievance felt on behalf of one’s group and the reac- tions to those grievances, such as resentment and dissatisfaction (Crosby, 1982). Consistent with the theory of collective relative deprivation, women who perceived that their organization discriminated against their own sex (i.e., group deprivation) expressed their feelings in concrete ways, such as decreased self-efficacy (Gutek et al., 1996). DISTRIBUTIVE AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE Distributive justice is grounded in equity theory, which states that individ- uals believe outcomes are fair when they are consistent with individual inputs (Adams, 1965; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Since justice refers to individuals’ perceptions of fairness, we will use the terms justice and fairness interchangeably. The fairness of the means used to determine organizational outcomes is referred to as procedural justice. Two central themes in the study of organizational justice are that fairness in organizational procedures consti- tutes both an important determinant of work attitudes (Lee & Farh, 1999) and a predictor of employee reactions, such as how individuals evaluate their workplace experiences (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). Justice researchers have generated a large body of research illustrating that justice perceptions have substantial effects on job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Younts & Mueller, 2001). Foley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE 423 Employees’ perceptions of distributive and procedural justice are related to organizational policies and practices. According to Balser (2002), individ- uals’ interpretations and perceptions of discrimination are also affected by the practices and procedures, adopted by the organization, that signal stake- holders about the organization’s concerns for the fair treatment of employ- ees. Some organizational practices (e.g., lower pay for women) may simulta- neously affect the perceptions of distributive justice, procedural justice, and gender discrimination, whereas other practices (e.g., salary cut in a depart- ment) may affect only one perception. Although the perceptions of distribu- tive justice and gender discrimination involve social comparisons, the target of comparisons may not be the same. Therefore, the three constructs are different but related as they focus on different aspects of equity at work. GENDER AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES Research examining gender differences in the justice/outcome relation- ship has shown mixed results. Brockner and Adsit (1986) found that per- ceived distributive justice had a stronger relationship with job satisfaction for men compared to women. Sweeney and McFarlin (1997) found that relation- ships between the fairness of procedures (e.g., performance appraisal) and various organizational outcome variables (e.g., commitment and intent to stay) are stronger for women than for men, and that relationships between the fairness of outcome distributions (e.g., pay raises) and those same variables are stronger for men than for women. Lee and Farh (1999) replicated Swee- ney and McFarlin’s study, and the only moderated effect they found was between distributive justice and trust in supervisor, which was stronger for women than for men. Fields, Pang, and Chiu (2000) found that the effects of procedural and distributive justice are about the same for men and for women, suggesting that women may expect to obtain fair treatment in the allocation of rewards. Brockner and Adsit (1986) were guided by the notion that if the equity norm is more salient for males than females, then males’ satisfaction with an exchange relationship would be more dependent upon the equity of that rela- tionship relative to females’ satisfaction. Lee and Farh (1999) suggested that females focus more on process-oriented issues, whereas males focus more on outcome-oriented issues. Sweeney and McFarlin (1997, p. 84) based their hypotheses on “the overall pattern of laboratory research and theorizing,” including women’s low sense of personal entitlement and women’s social- ization to be more interested in cultivating relationships with co-workers than are men. Fields et al. (2000) proposed that distributive and procedural justice will predict work outcomes in Hong Kong in the same way as in the 424 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT U.S. (i.e., procedural justice will have a stronger relationship than distribu- tive justice with work outcomes for women). They took the viewpoint that Hong Kong’s exposure to Western business and employment practices has led to a convergence of work-related values and expectations despite sub- stantial cultural differences (i.e., differences in collectivism vs. individual- ism, power distance, and Confucianism). Thus, the relationships of justice and work outcomes for Hong Kong employees would be similar to rela- tionships found in previous studies of American employees. Rather than focusing on the above cultural differences, we propose that due to a similarly high masculinity score in Hong Kong and the United States, the relationship between distributive justice and various organiza- tional outcomes is stronger for men than for women. The level of masculinity versus femininity in a society is related to the division of gender roles and gender differences in values (Hofstede, 2001). In masculine societies, men are supposed to be assertive, competitive, and focused on material success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Studies have found that Chinese subjects show greater degrees of sex-role differentiation than Americans (Bond & Hwang, 1986). Therefore, we also expect that the relationship between procedural justice and outcome variables is stronger for men than for women. We suggest that a culture’s masculinity dimension may have sig- nificant consequences for the validity of applying theories of justice and discrimination from one country to another. GENDER ROLE THEORY AND PERSONAL RELATIVE DEPRIVATION One explanation for gender differences in reactions to justice or discrimi- nation that has not been fully explored is the social role theory of gender dif- ferences (or gender role theory). According to this theory, women and men tend to differ in a wide range of social behaviors in social contexts in which gender roles are salient (Eagly, 1987). Individuals conform to gender stereo- types (e.g., men exhibit traditionally masculine behaviors, and women ex- hibit traditionally feminine behaviors) in large part because the different roles that they perform place different social demands on them (Vogel, Wester, Heesacker, & Madon, 2003). Males, likely to be in higher-status roles, display gender-stereotypic “agentic” qualities (e.g., assertive, compet- itive, controlling), and females, likely to be in lower-status roles, display gender-stereotypic “communal” qualities (e.g., nurturing, kind, selfless) (Crosby, 1982, p. 16). The enactment of gender roles and the confirmation of gender stereotypes appear to be a dynamic process that is dependent on Foley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE 425 specific contextual factors (Vogel et al., 2003). Applying gender role theory, Fields et al.’s (2000) finding of no gender difference in the justice/outcome relationship may be due to specific social roles (e.g., occupational roles) that are of considerably more importance in determining work behavior than are gender roles. In other words, because such social roles may easily override gender roles under certain conditions, it is possible that women and men in the same specific social role behave quite similarly (Eagly, 1987). The general explanation for personal relative deprivation is that individu- als’ expectations, based largely on social comparisons, determine levels of contentment regardless of their objective situation. Whereas justice theory takes into account people’s feelings about distributions in general, relative- deprivation research concentrates on how people react to “their own position in the larger matrix” (Crosby, 1982, p. 26). Social comparisons are an essen- tial component in assessing whether one is deprived. Building on Crosby’s (1982) work, Major (1994) argued that women feel less entitled to job re- wards than do men, and that is the key to understanding women’s greater job satisfaction. SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY The basic principles of social identity underlie much of the research on equity and justice theory (Primeaux, Karri, & Caldwell, 2003). Social iden- tity theory (Capozza & Brown, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) suggests that people classify themselves and others into social categories and then identify more with members of their own category (in-group) than with members of other categories (out-group). According to this perspective, identity has a social component derived from salient group memberships, such as gender, race, class, and nationality (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). People may identify more with individuals who are similar along a dimension of social identity that they believe has been used as the basis of discrimination against them (Wharton, 1992). Social identity theory suggests that females in the work- place may be sensitive to discrimination or injustice that they believe is directed toward women (Schmitt, Ellemers, & Branscombe, 2003) and that women’s own personal experiences or the experiences of others with whom they identify will affect their perception of discrimination (Gutek et al., 1996). Since Hong Kong is a masculine society where social gender roles are clearly distinct (Hofstede, 2001), we expect that individuals will identify with others along gender lines. In summary, perceptions of gender discrimination and justice, and the processes that generate these perceptions, occur within social contexts that often treat or reward people differently based on the social group to which 426 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT they belong. Organizational characteristics, such as segregation and discrim- ination, are likely to structure comparison processes by shaping the relative value individuals attach to various social groups. Gender differences in work attitudes and behaviors are affected by many aspects of the organizational context, such as role expectations associated with one’s gender and job position. HYPOTHESES Figure 1 presents our proposed model of perceptions, attitudes, and inten- tions. Below, several hypotheses are derived for our Protestant clergy re- spondents in Hong Kong. DIRECT EFFECTS Employees who perceived sexist policies and practices in their organiza- tions reported less job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Ensher et al., 2001) and are less likely to choose the same career if they could start over (Gutek et al., 1996). Discrimination against female clergy is demon- strated by their disproportionate absence from positions of authority, their assignment to specialized positions with less chance of promotions, and lower salaries than male colleagues receive (Nesbitt, 1997; Ngo, Foley, Wong, & Loi, 2003; Schneider & Schneider, 1997). In addition, studies of male and female clergy consistently find a gender gap in benefits and pay Foley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE 427 Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Intentions to Leave H1b, H2b, H3b H8a H8b H8a H1a, H2a, H3a H8b H5a, H5b, H6a, H6b, H7a, H7b Gender Perceived Gender Discrimination Distributive Justice Procedural Justice H4a, H4b, H4c Figure 1: Proposed Theoretical Model (Chang, 2000; McDuff, 2001). Female clergy as a group still face difficulties in being accepted by congregations, and female clergy have not integrated well into the occupation beyond lower-level positions (Nesbitt, 1997; Ngo & Wong, 2002). We predict that when individuals perceive that their gender is used as the basis of discrimination in their workplace, they will display a low level of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Hypothesis 1a: Perceived gender discrimination will be negatively related to job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1b: Perceived gender discrimination will be negatively related to orga- nizational commitment. It is well documented that when individuals perceive that the basic out- comes in their organization are more fair, they have more positive work- related attitudes (Greenberg, 1986, 1990). Individuals make social compari- sons between themselves and their coworkers in regards to their organizational rewards. These comparisons are likely to influence their assessment of the fairness of rewards in their organization (Ngo et al., 2003), which in turn affects their level of job satisfaction and commitment to the organization. Hypothesis 2a: Perceived distributive justice will be positively related to job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2b: Perceived distributive justice will be positively related to organi- zational commitment. One of the most consistent and significant findings of procedural justice research is the positive effect perceptions of procedural justice exert on indi- viduals’ long-term attitudes (such as commitment and satisfaction) toward groups, institutions, and leaders (Kim & Mauborgne, 1998). The manner in which a social system deals with allocating rewards and resources has an impact on organizational effectiveness and on the satisfaction of organiza- tional members (Leventhal, 1980). Randall and Mueller (1995) provide evi- dence of the positive effect of justice evaluations on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Hypothesis 3a: Perceived procedural justice will be positively related to job satisfaction. Hypothesis 3b: Perceived procedural justice will be positively related to organiza- tional commitment. Intentions to leave have been studied extensively in the management liter- ature (e.g., Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin, 1999). Most turn- over research has found that intentions to leave are the strongest predictor of 428 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT employee turnover behavior (Rosin & Korabik, 1991; Stroh, Brett, & Reilly, 1996). Other organizational phenomena have been hypothesized to influ- ence intentions to leave the firm. For one sample of female managers, work- ing in a male-dominated environment was significantly related to low satis- faction and commitment and to a high propensity to leave the firm (Rosin & Korabik, 1991). Female managers leave their organizations because they “bump their heads” against a glass ceiling. Thus, perceived gender discrimi- nation will increase turnover intentions (Morrison, White, & Van Velsor, 1987). Stroh et al. (1996) also found that female managers who are frustrated at their lack of career opportunities are more likely to quit their organizations than are male managers with a similar level of frustration. Previous research has identified a link between organizational justice and intentions to leave (DeWitt, Trevino, & Mollica, 1998). Social comparisons (with others or self) affect wants, aspirations, and judgments of what is feasi- ble for oneself (Major, 1994), and when social comparison leads to feelings of unfairness, the individual may intend to leave the firm. As pointed out by McDuff and Mueller (2000), clergy intentions to leave one church for another are based on a rational assessment of work conditions in their current church. Thus, we predict that despite their professional service calling, clergy will seriously consider leaving their organization if they are experi- encing gender discrimination and unfairness in their church. Hypothesis 4a: Perceived gender discrimination will be positively related to inten- tions to leave. Hypothesis 4b: Perceived distributive justice will be negatively related to inten- tions to leave. Hypothesis 4c: Perceived procedural justice will be negatively related to inten- tions to leave. MODERATING EFFECT OF GENDER In the present study, we hypothesize that the relationship between per- ceived gender discrimination and work-related attitudes will differ for women and for men.1 Existing evidence indicates that women experience more gender discrimination in the workplace than do men (Northcraft & Gutek, 1993) and encounter a glass-ceiling barrier to promotion based on gender (Morrison et al., 1987). Some researchers contend that women tend to be more aware of employment discrimination than men owing to their mem- bership in a discriminated-against social group (Ngo et al., 2002; Trentham & Larwood, 1998). Although social identity theory and the concept of rela- tive deprivation suggests that women typically use other women as their so- cial comparison group (Crosby, 1982), women presumably compare them- Foley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE 429 selves to men when assessing gender discrimination. Working women can see that women in general are disadvantaged in the workplace. In other words, women easily recognize areas of collective disadvantage (Crosby, 1982). If women do indeed perceive more discrimination based on gender than do men, and if they expect to suffer more from it than do men, then the relationship between gender discrimination and negative reactions to the job and organization will be stronger for women than for men. Hypothesis 5a: Gender will moderate the relationship between perceived gender discrimination and job satisfaction. Specifically, the negative effect of per- ceived gender discrimination on job satisfaction will be stronger for women than for men. Hypothesis 5b: Gender will moderate the relationship between perceived gender discrimination and organizational commitment. Specifically, the negative effect of perceived gender discrimination on organizational commitment will be stronger for women than for men. Gender differences in entitlement for pay is an important reason why women are no less satisfied than men are with their jobs or pay despite their objective disadvantage (Major, 1994). Major (1994) argued that women feel less entitled to job rewards than men do and women’s sense of entitlement is likely to be affected by their acceptance of gender-based inequality in job rewards and conditions. The “contented female worker” sees little gap be- tween her actual and desired job rewards, even though she is underpaid rela- tive to men, because pay does not constitute a critical desire for her (Crosby, 1982, p. 160). Women and men estimate what they deserve on the basis of intragroup comparisons that occur in social contexts in which women are dis- advantaged, resulting in women having a lesser sense of entitlement to pay and rewards than men have (Major, 1994). Female clergy receive lower pay, serve in less desirable churches, and receive fewer opportunities for ad- vancement, yet they are significantly more satisfied with their jobs than are male clergy in comparable positions (McDuff, 2001). Among the Protestant clergy in Hong Kong, gender roles are salient and likely to override any specific social roles (e.g., organizational or profes- sional roles), and thus we would expect to find gender differences in justice/ outcome relationships. There are two reasons for the gender differences. First, female clergy have fewer opportunities for promotion and ordination compared to male clergy, and they have a lower representation in large denominations (Nesbitt, 1996; Ngo & Wong, 2002). According to McDuff and Mueller (2002), under such circumstances, female clergy tend to develop alternative models of ministry. For example, they may be expanding the images of ways to perform the ministry and reevaluating traditional values 430 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT about their profession. In ambiguous work situations that lack well-defined organizational and professional roles with clear role requirements, gender roles are relatively salient (Eagly, 1987). Second, in the local church setting, jobs are highly sex segregated (Ngo et al., 2003). Because of sex segregation and the assignment of differential tasks for men and women, gender roles become important and even more relevant to job performance than do other social roles. Personal relative deprivation occurs when an individual feels disadvan- taged in his or her job situation relative to others in his or her own group. For a woman, this social comparison group is often comprised of other women (Crosby, 1982). Crosby (1982) suggested that because of job and occupa- tional segregation, women typically use other women as their social compar- ison group and consequently have lower expectations for work rewards than do men. Men will react more negatively to injustice than will women because (a) men have been socialized to derive satisfaction from outcomes obtained from competition; (b) men may be more likely to be concerned with fairness issues because procedures and outcomes generally favor them (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997); and (c) in moral problem solving, men primarily employ a justice orientation characterized by considerations of fairness and equity (Gilligan, 1982). Thus, we expect that men will react more strongly to per- ceived distributive and procedural justice than will women. Hypothesis 6a: Gender will moderate the relationship between perceived distribu- tive justice and job satisfaction. Specifically, the more fair the reward, the higher men’s job satisfaction compared to women’s. Hypothesis 6b: Gender will moderate the relationship between perceived distribu- tive justice and organizational commitment. Specifically, the more fair the reward, the higher men’s organizational commitment compared to women’s. Hypothesis 7a: Gender will moderate the relationship between perceived proce- dural justice and job satisfaction. Specifically, the more fair the process, the higher men’s job satisfaction compared to women’s. Hypothesis 7b: Gender will moderate the relationship between perceived proce- dural justice and organizational commitment. Specifically, the more fair the process, the higher men’s organizational commitment compared to women’s. MEDIATING RELATIONSHIP Job satisfaction and organizational commitment may function as media- tors in our model because they account for the relationship between fairness and discrimination perceptions and an individual’s intention to leave the organization. We argue that unfairness or discrimination alone may not cause an individual to consider leaving the organization. However, when the unfairness or discrimination translates into dissatisfaction or low commit- Foley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE 431 ment, they take on significance through these work-related attitudes. In other words, job dissatisfaction and low organizational commitment intervene between perceptions and intentions to leave and account for why or how indi- viduals intend to leave. Therefore, although we have hypothesized that per- ceptions of unfairness and discrimination will affect an individual’s intention to leave the organization, the mechanism by which these variations in inten- tions to leave are produced is through job dissatisfaction and low organizational commitment. Hypothesis 8a: Job satisfaction mediates the effects of perceived gender discrimi- nation, distributive justice, and procedural justice on intentions to leave. Hypothesis 8b: Organizational commitment mediates the effects of perceived gender discrimination, distributive justice, and procedural justice on inten- tions to leave. METHOD SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE Our sample is comprised of Protestant clergy in Hong Kong. We chose clergy as our respondents for many reasons. First, gender inequity and dis- crimination at work has long been a concern in religious organizations (Chang, 2000; Nesbitt, 1997; Ngo & Wong, 2002). Partly because of reli- gious doctrines and traditions, women clergy have been disproportionately absent from positions of authority, and they face difficulties in being ac- cepted (Nesbitt, 1996). As female clergy confront more discrimination than their male colleagues, it is interesting to study how their job attitudes are affected by the perception of gender discrimination at work. Second, in re- cent research, justice evaluations are found to affect pay satisfaction among clergy (Younts & Mueller, 2001). Few studies, however, have examined other outcomes of organizational justice in the church setting. Third, clergy have been viewed as a “professional occupational labor market” character- ized by long-term career orientation (McDuff & Mueller, 2000). Compared to workers in the business sector, clergy tend to have longer job tenure and to care more about their long-term career prospects in the organization. Clergy are characterized by their professional service orientation, a “calling” that goes beyond self-interest toward the divine (McDuff & Mueller, 2000). A sense of calling reflects the public service ideal that is one of the primary criteria of a profession (Hatch, 1988). Using clergy as our sample helps us to understand more about how professional workers perceive fairness and 432 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT discrimination at work and about how organizational conditions affect their perceptions. The data come from a survey of Protestant clergy conducted in Hong Kong in 2001. The target respondents were 2,600 pastors and preachers for local churches. All of the respondents were local Chinese. A Christian asso- ciation provided the names and mailing addresses for these clergy. Mailed to each potential respondent was a self-administered questionnaire along with a cover letter that explained the purpose of the survey (i.e., to understand the work situation and role expectation of clergy) and that invited them to partic- ipate on a voluntary basis. All respondents were assured of confidentiality and asked to return their completed questionnaire to a research center affili- ated with a local university. A follow-up call was made to remind the respon- dents to complete the questionnaire 3 to 4 weeks after the initial mailing. A total of 877 surveys were finally returned, representing a response rate of 33.7%. The questionnaires were administered in Chinese with some well- established scales developed in the West. Items for these scales were origi- nally developed in English and then translated into Chinese. The wording of some items was modified to fit the research setting. To ensure the quality of the translation, a back-translation was also done (Brislin, 1970). Among the respondents, 52.5% were male and 67.6% were married. The average work experience and organizational tenure were 9.5 and 5.6 years, respectively. Regarding their job positions, 21.7% were pastors and 64.0% were preachers. 27.1% of them (mostly pastors) reported that they were in charge of the church. Male and female clergy, however, reported holding dif- ferent job positions in the hierarchy. Of the male respondents, 157 (34.3%) and 217 (47.4%) were pastors and preachers, respectively. The figures were 32 (7.7%) and 341 (82.4%) for the female respondents. In fact, more men were granted ordination (to be pastors) than were women. Moreover, among those who are in charge of their church, 190 (80.5%) were male and 46 (19.5%) were female, which reflected that female clergy are less likely to be appointed or promoted to that position compared with their male colleagues. MEASURES Perceived gender discrimination. Four items, adopted from Sanchez and Brock (1996), were used to measure respondents’ perception of gender dis- crimination in the workplace. The original scale with 10 items was designed to measure perceived ethnic discrimination among Hispanic employees. We selected and modified four items from that scale to fit our research context. Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.868. Foley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE 433 Distributive justice. Distributive justice was measured by four items tap- ping perceived fairness of reward that were modified from Goodman (1974) and from Tremblay and Roussel (2001). The perceived justice of rewards was broken down into justice based on efforts and time, based on internal equity (colleagues in the same organization), and based on external equity (workers in other organizations). This scale has a high alpha coefficient of 0.943. Procedural justice. Procedural justice was assessed with four items modi- fied from Balkin and Gomez-Mejia (1990) and from Parker, Baltes, and Christiansen (1997) to capture the perceived fairness of the procedures used to make personnel decisions and to determine work arrangements. These items focused mainly on respondents’ inputs into and degrees of involve- ment in the decision-making process. Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.831. Job satisfaction. This variable was measured by a three-item scale devel- oped by Price and Mueller (1981). Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.861. Organizational commitment. A short form of the affective organizational commitment scale developed by Allen and Meyer (1990) was employed. We changed the word “organization” to the word “church” in our scale items. This scale had an alpha coefficient alpha of 0.849. Intentions to leave. This variable was measured by a three-item scale developed by Cohen (1998) and based on Mobley, Griffin, Hand, and Meglino’s (1979) definition. The three items had an alpha coefficient of 0.855. The items and scales of the above measures are shown in the Appendix. Gender. Males were coded as 0, and females were coded as 1. Control variables. A review of previous studies on clergy’s job attitudes suggested three important variables to control for in the analysis, including church size, tenure with the current church, and job position. McDuff and Meuller (2002) pointed out that clergy who serve large churches tend to have a high level of job satisfaction and attachment to their current parish. In our study, church size refers to the size of congregation as measured with nine categories ranging from “less than 50 parishioners” to “more than 1000 parishioners.” We follow the works of McDuff (2001) and McDuff and Mueller (2000) to control for organizational tenure, which is often found to 434 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT be a significant predictor of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. It is measured as the respondent’s total number of years working in the church. Lastly, ministerial position is related to work autonomy and author- ity in decision-making that affects work satisfaction (McDuff, 2001). In our study, job position is indicated by a dummy variable coded 1 if the respon- dent is the person who is in charge of the church and coded 0 if the respondent is not. STATISTICAL ANALYSES We employed hierarchical regression to test the hypotheses. Separate analyses were conducted for job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intentions to leave. For the analysis of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, the control variables were entered in the regression model in step 1. Discrimination and justice perceptions were then entered as a block in step 2, followed by gender in step 3. In the last step, the three interaction terms (i.e., gender with discrimination, distributive justice, and procedural justice) were entered. Such a stepwise design was used to test the moderating effect of gender (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Our hypotheses were tested by examining the regression coefficients and the change in model R2 at each step. For moderator hypothesis testing, we employed a less stringent signifi- cance level (i.e., 0.1) because measurement error and shared variances make Type II errors likely. Significant interactions were plotted to show the exact moderating effect. For testing mediating relationships, we adopted the proce- dure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). We first regressed job satisfac- tion and organizational commitment, the two potential mediators, on the three independent variables (i.e., perceived gender discrimination, distribu- tive justice, and procedural justice). Then, we regressed intentions to leave on these independent variables. Finally, we regressed intentions to leave on both the independent variables and on the mediators. The mediation effects can be shown by the changes in the regression coefficients of the independent variables in different models. RESULTS Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correla- tions among the study variables. Perceived gender discrimination was nega- tively correlated with distributive and procedural justice (r = –.27 and –.31, respectively). It also showed a negative correlation with job satisfaction (r = –.23) and organizational commitment (r = –.29) and a positive correlation Foley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE 435 with intentions to leave (r = .37). In addition, the correlation of distributive justice and procedural justice was strong (r = .58). These two variables were positively related to job satisfaction (r = .32 and .38, respectively) and orga- nizational commitment (r = .50 and .61, respectively), and both were nega- tively related to intentions to leave (r = –.35 and –.42, respectively). To test for common method variance and to help establish the convergent and discriminant validity of the major constructs in this study, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.30. All items for the six per- ceptual and attitudinal measures were included in the analysis. The results revealed that the six-factor model provides a good fit to the data, with a chi- square value of 808.03 (df = 174; p < .01). The root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.064, whereas the goodness of fit index (GFI) and comparative fit index (CFI) were 0.92 and 0.95, respectively. All the indicators loaded exactly on their respective constructs. t-tests were conducted to show the gender differences in study variables. As shown in Table 2, male and female respondents were different in their perceptions of gender discrimination (t = –6.79, p < .001), with female clergy perceiving more gender discrimination in the workplace than did their male colleagues. Male respondents also reported a slightly higher level of distribu- tive and procedural justice (t = 2.11 and 2.70, p < .01 and p < .05, respec- tively) than did female respondents. Men were higher on organizational commitment (t = 3.05, p < .01) and lower on intentions to leave (t = –2.03, p < .05), but no significant difference was found between men and women in their level of job satisfaction. Tables 3 and 4 display the results of regression analyses on job satisfac- tion and organizational commitment, respectively. The direct effects of per- ceived gender discrimination, distributive justice, and procedural justice are evaluated in Model 2. First, perceived gender discrimination was negatively related to job satisfaction (β = –.07, p < .05) and organizational commitment (β = –.07, p < .05). This provides support for Hypotheses 1a and 1b. Addi- tionally, both distributive justice and procedural justice were significantly related to job satisfaction (β = .11, p < .01 and β = .28, p < .01, respectively) and organizational commitment (β = .19, p < .01 and β = .44, p < .01, respec- tively) in the predicted direction. Thus, Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b gained empirical support. When gender was entered in Model 3, it did not account for a significant amount of variance for either outcome variable. Hypotheses 5a to 7b posit that gender will play a moderating role in the above relation- ships. To test these hypotheses, three interaction terms were included in Model 4, and they slightly increased the explained variance in job satisfac- tion (∆R2 = .01, p < .1) and organizational commitment (∆R2 = .01, p < .05). 436 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT 437 T A B L E 1 M ea n s, S ta n d ar d D ev ia ti on s an d C or re la ti on s A m on g S tu d y V ar ia b le s V a ri a b le M S D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1. G en de r (f em al e = 1 ) 0. 47 0. 50 2. O rg an iz at io na l te nu re 5. 57 4. 99 –0 .1 1* * 3. Jo b po si ti on 0. 27 0. 44 –0 .3 4* * 0. 28 ** 4. C hu rc h si ze 3. 94 2. 34 0. 03 0. 02 –0 .2 3* * 5. P er ce iv ed g en de r di sc ri m in at io n 2. 65 1. 09 0. 22 ** –0 .0 9* –0 .1 5* * –0 .0 8* 6. D is tr ib ut iv e ju st ic e 4. 49 1. 12 –0 .0 7* 0. 12 ** 0. 12 ** 0. 02 –0 .2 7* * 7. P ro ce du ra l ju st ic e 4. 43 0. 99 –0 .0 9* 0. 14 ** 0. 19 ** –0 .1 1* * –0 .3 1* * 0. 58 ** 8. Jo b sa ti sf ac ti on 4. 75 0. 80 –0 .0 5 0. 16 ** 0. 18 ** 0. 05 –0 .2 3* * 0. 32 ** 0. 38 ** 9. O rg an iz at io na l co m m it m en t 4. 72 1. 02 –0 .1 0* * 0. 29 ** 0. 21 ** –0 .0 1 –0 .2 9* * 0. 50 ** 0. 61 ** 0. 56 ** 10 . In te nt io ns t o le av e 2. 18 1. 09 0. 07 * –0 .1 1* * –0 .1 6* * –0 .0 1 0. 37 ** –0 .3 5* * –0 .4 2* * –0 .4 6* * –0 .5 7* * N O T E : A ll t w o- ta il ed t es ts . *p < .0 5. * *p < .0 1. The interaction of gender with perceived gender discrimination was signifi- cant for organizational commitment (β = –.24, p < .01) but not for job satis- faction. In other words, Hypothesis 5b was supported, and Hypothesis 5a was not supported. Based on the procedure suggested by Holmbeck (1997) 438 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT TABLE 2 Gender Differences in Study Variables Variable x for males x for females t-value Organizational tenure 6.09 4.97 3.25** Job position 0.41 0.11 10.71** Church size 3.89 4.01 –0.73 Perceived gender discrimination 2.42 2.91 –6.79** Distributive justice 4.57 4.41 2.11* Procedural justice 4.51 4.33 2.70** Job satisfaction 4.78 4.70 1.39 Organizational commitment 4.81 4.60 3.05** Intentions to leave 2.11 2.26 –2.03* NOTE: n range from 836 to 872. *p < .05. **p < .01. TABLE 3 Regression Analysis on Job Satisfaction Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Organizational tenure 0.11** 0.07* 0.07* 0.07* Job position 0.16** 0.09** 0.11** 0.11** Church size 0.08* 0.09** 0.09** 0.09** Perceived gender discrimination –0.07* –0.08* –0.13* Distributive justice 0.11** 0.11** 0.17** Procedural justice 0.28** 0.28** 0.27** Gender (female = 1) 0.06† 0.21 Gender x perceived 0.11 gender discrimination Gender x distributive justice –0.28† Gender x procedural justice 0.03 R 2 0.05** 0.19** 0.19** 0.20** F-statistic 13.80 31.74 27.72 20.12 ∆ R2 0.14** 0.01† 0.01† F-statistic 47.34 3.10 2.13 NOTE: n = 822. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. † p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. for a dichotomous moderator, we plotted the interaction effect. As shown in Figure 2, the effect of perceived gender discrimination on organizational commitment was stronger for women than for men. It is also worthy to note that the interaction of gender with distributive justice was significant for job satisfaction (β = –.28, p < .1) but not for organizational commitment. Thus, Hypothesis 6a was supported, and Hypothesis 6b was not supported. Figure 3 reveals that distributive justice was associated with lower job satisfaction for men than for women. Since the interaction of gender with procedural justice was not significant for either outcome variable, Hypotheses 7a and 7b were not supported by the data. The results of regression analysis for intentions to leave are shown in Table 5. Model 1 is the baseline model that includes gender and the control variables. In Model 2, when perceived gender discrimination and the two jus- tice variables were entered, they raised the explained variance by 22%. Spe- cifically, it was found that perceived gender discrimination (β = .25, p < .01) had a positive effect, whereas distributive justice (β = –.11, p < .01) and pro- cedural justice (β = –.27, p < .01) had a negative effect on intentions to leave. Thus, support was found for Hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c. However, in Model Foley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE 439 TABLE 4 Regression Analysis on Organizational Commitment Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Organizational tenure 0.25** 0.19** 0.19** 0.19** Job position 0.14** 0.05 0.05 0.05† Church size 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 Perceived gender discrimination –0.07* –0.07* 0.02 Distributive justice 0.19** 0.19** 0.23** Procedural justice 0.44** 0.44** 0.44** Gender (female = 1) 0.01 0.39* Gender x perceived –0.24** gender discrimination Gender x distributive justice –0.16 Gender x procedural justice –0.03 R 2 0.10** 0.44** 0.44** 0.45** F-statistic 31.70 107.97 92.44 66.01 ∆ R2 0.34** 0.00 0.01* F-statistic 165.18 0.03 2.87 NOTE: n = 823. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. † p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. 440 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT 4 4.5 5 Low High Perceived Gender Discrimination O rg a n iz a ti o n a l C o m m it m e n t Males Females Males Females Figure 2: Moderating Effect of Gender on the Relationship Between Perceived Gender Discrimination and Organizational Commitment 4 4.5 5 Low High Distributive Justice J o b S a ti s fa c ti o n Males Females Figure 3: Moderating Effect of Gender on the Relationship Between Distributive Justice and Job Satisfaction 3, the interaction terms of gender with perceived gender discrimination, dis- tributive justice, and procedural justice were insignificant. Hypotheses 8a and 8b, stating that job satisfaction and organizational commitment mediate the effects of gender discrimination and distributive and procedural justice on intentions to leave, were tested according to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure. As shown in Models 1, 2, and 3 in Table 6, the three predictors significantly affected job satisfaction and organizational commitment (i.e., the two hypothesized mediators) and intentions to leave in the predicted direction. In Model 4, when both the mediators and independ- ent variables are included, the significant effects of distributive justice and procedural justice in the previous model disappeared. Taking these findings together, both Hypotheses 8a and 8b were supported in that job satisfaction and organizational commitment fully mediated the effects of justice percep- tions on intentions to leave. However, the effect of perceived gender discrim- ination remained significant in Model 4. This variable seems to have a strong direct effect on intentions to leave and not through job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Foley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE 441 TABLE 5 Regression Analysis on Intentions to Leave Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Organizational tenure –0.06† –0.02 –0.02 Job position –0.16** –0.09* –0.08* Church size –0.04 –0.03 –0.03 Gender (female = 1) 0.01 –0.05 –0.14 Perceived gender discrimination 0.25** 0.25** Distributive justice –0.11** –0.14** Procedural justice –0.27** –0.26** Gender x perceived gender discrimination –0.00 Gender x distributive justice –0.04 Gender x procedural justice 0.13 R 2 0.03** 0.26** 0.26** F-statistic 7.10 40.04 28.04 ∆ R2 0.22** 0.00 F-statistic 81.17 0.28 NOTE: n = 821. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. † p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. DISCUSSION In the present study, perceived injustice and gender discrimination were significantly related to job dissatisfaction, low organizational commitment, and greater intentions to leave the organization. Additionally, we found that women perceived higher levels of gender discrimination than did men, and for women, perceptions of gender discrimination were associated with lower organizational commitment but not with job satisfaction. This suggests that women may more strongly attribute gender discrimination to the organiza- tion than do men. Thus, their commitment to the organization is adversely affected as a result. Women’s satisfaction with their jobs, which may be seen as separate from the organization, is not particularly affected by their per- ception of gender discrimination. The other significant moderating relationship we found was between dis- tributive justice and job satisfaction, which was stronger for men than for women. As shown in Table 2, women reported a lower level of perceived procedural and distributive justice perceptions than did men, and both differ- ences were statistically significant. However, the effects of distributive and procedural justice were about the same for both sexes, supporting Fields et al.’s (2000) conclusion that women in Hong Kong may expect equal treat- ment with men in recognition and rewards, and hence they respond similarly to men. For female and male clergy, their responses to justice may be similar because they are highly educated and share the same religious values. 442 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT TABLE 6 Testing Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Model 4: Job Organizational Intentions Intentions Predictor Satisfaction Commitment to Leave to Leave Perceived gender discrimination –0.10** –0.08** 0.25** 0.20** Distributive justice 0.13** 0.20** –0.12** –0.02 Procedural justice 0.27** 0.46** –0.27** –0.05 Job satisfaction –0.18** Organizational commitment –0.39** Adjusted R2 0.17 0.40 0.25 0.40 F-statistic 58.39** 195.49** 95.65** 117.03** n 864 865 863 863 NOTE: Standardized regression coefficients are reported. *p < .05. **p < .01. Furthermore, we found a relationship between perceived distributive and procedural justice and intentions to leave the organization through the medi- ating effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Unfair pro- cedures and outcomes alone may not be enough to result in individuals’ intentions to quit their present job. Our findings revealed that job satisfaction and organizational commitment fully mediated the relationships between justice perceptions and intentions to leave. This confirms the importance of satisfaction and commitment as intervening variables in models of turnover intentions (Williams & Hazer, 1986). We were surprised to find that the relationship between gender discrimi- nation and intentions to leave the organization was not mediated by job satis- faction and organizational commitment, suggesting that gender discrimina- tion alone is enough to affect individuals’ leave intentions. Individuals seem to form leave intentions in part by directly considering the gender discrimi- nation experienced in their organization. IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY By measuring both discrimination and justice perceptions, researchers can better understand how organizational conditions and processes affect job satisfaction and organizational commitment and how these work-related atti- tudes drive intentions to leave. The present study makes several contribu- tions to the literature. First, it examines discrimination from the point of view of those who may actually be experiencing discrimination. Thus, it offers insight into the reactions and work-related outcomes of the victims of dis- crimination. Second, our study establishes a theoretical and empirical link, not often recognized in the current literature, between the gender discrim- ination literature and justice theory. Third, our study answers Barak, Cherin, and Berkman’s (1998) call for future research examining employees’ per- ceptions of discrimination and the impact on their job attitudes. Fourth, Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) masculinity dimension may help in predicting gen- der differences in individuals’ perceived justice and discrimination in the workplace. Last, we address Sweeney and McFarlin’s (1997) view that much more needs to be done to identify factors or conditions that affect the moder- ating role that gender has on justice/outcome relationships. As we use clergy as our sample, the present study enables us to understand more about gender differences in a professional setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Our findings have practical implications for understanding the moder- ating effect of gender on the perception-intention relationships we tested. Foley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE 443 Perceptions of unfair organizational rewards have a more negative effect on men’s job satisfaction than on women’s job satisfaction. This would suggest to managers that the fairness of rewards is particularly important to men and that managers should endeavor to be perceived as fair when making reward allocations to minimize the adverse impact on job satisfaction. Continued research on the managerial practices that influence fairness perceptions will contribute to the design and implementation of fair allocative procedures and outcomes. Managers need to realize that decreasing employees’ perceptions of unfairness and discrimination is as important to employee retention as increasing job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The direct effect of gender discrimination on intentions to leave also has practical implications. The perception of gender discrimination in the work- place directly affects employees’ intentions to leave regardless of how satis- fied they are in their job or how committed they may be to the organization. Gender discrimination creates an overall negative work environment for all employees (Ensher et al., 2001); thus, individuals who perceive gender dis- crimination may be more likely to consider leaving the organization. Our results should alert managers to the negative consequences of employees’ attributing differences in treatment to their gender. Management decisions and communications with employees should be carefully shaped to prevent perceptions of differential treatment based on gender. LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Some methodological limitations of our study should be acknowledged. First, the potential for social desirability bias influencing responses was pres- ent because of the sensitive nature of the questions. This limitation was addressed in part by the guaranteed confidentiality of responses. Second, all of the variables were assessed by self-report measures, raising the possibility of common-methods bias. Third, the study was cross-sectional and did not capture trends within organizations, but causal relationships were inferred. One must be sure to note that causal inferences made from cross-sectional designs are never more than inferences (Moorman, 1991). Fourth, the view- point of the decision-makers, which may have shed further light on the per- ceptions of fairness and discrimination, was not assessed. Last, the depen- dent variables consisted of attitudes rather than behaviors. The behavioral consequences of justice and discrimination perceptions also need to be examined to understand the full ramifications of the gender differences in work-related attitudes. In addition, three potential limitations to the generalizability of this theo- retical perspective deserve comment. One issue concerns whether and to 444 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT what extent the theoretical framework developed here generalizes across dif- ferent types of professions. We believe that our results generalize to other workers in helping professions (e.g., social workers) as well as to other work- ers in the non-profit sector because they face similar work conditions and practices as clergy. Future research is needed to cross-validate the current model using other professional employees as well as different nationalities and denominations. A second issue is whether and to what extent the theo- retical framework developed here generalizes across different types of out- comes (including both positive and negative ones) or to outcomes less ame- nable to social comparison. Third, the generalizability of these findings may extend only to those countries that are high on the masculinity dimension (e.g., the United States, Japan, Mexico, Germany, and Austria) rather than low-masculinity countries (e.g., Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Den- mark, and Finland). Future research is needed to cross-validate the current model using other professional employees, different nationalities, and social groups other than male and female. A longitudinal research design may better assess individu- als’ intentions to leave or remain with an organization (Farkas & Tetrick, 1989). Therefore, future research that can track a cohort of employees in an organization is needed. In conclusion, this study broadens our understanding of the influence of perceived (in)justice and gender discrimination on job attitudes for male and female professional workers. APPENDIX A six-point Likert-type scale format (1 = Strongly Disagree; 6 = Strongly Agree) was used to measure employees’ perceptions and job attitudes in this study. Perceived Gender Discrimination (α = .868) 1. At work, I sometimes feel that my gender is a limitation. 2. My gender has a negative influence on my career advancement. 3. At work, many people have sex stereotypes and treat me as if they were true. 4. At work, I feel that others exclude me from their activities because of my gender. Distributive Justice (α = .943) 1. Compared with my effort and time I put, I receive reasonable reward. 2. Compared with my colleagues, I receive reasonable reward. 3. Compared with workers in other churches, I receive reasonable reward. 4. I get the reward that I deserve. Foley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE 445 Procedural Justice (α = .831) 1. My church tries to understand the view of workers on pay and work arrange- ments through various channels. 2. Workers are involved in making decisions that are related to their work. 3. Workers can express their opinions concerning their job assignment. 4. There is sufficient visibility on personnel decisions such as promotion and pay raise. Job satisfaction (α = .861) 1. I find real enjoyment in my job. 2. Most days I am enthusiastic about my job. 3. Overall speaking, I feel well satisfied with my job. Organizational Commitment (α = .849) 1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this church. 2. I really feel as if this church’s problems are my own. 3. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my church. Intentions to Leave (α = .855) 1. I think a lot about quitting my job. 2. I am actively searching for an alternative to my present job. 3. As soon as it is possible, I will leave the church. NOTE 1. In our study, gender is considered as the moderator. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), a moderator is a qualitative or quantitative variable that affects the direction and/or strength of the relation between an independent variable and a dependent variable. On the other hand, a mediator is a variable that accounts for the relation between the independent and the dependent variable. Whereas moderator variables specify when certain effects will hold, media- tors speak to how or why such effects occur. In our study, job satisfaction and organizational commitment are considered the two mediators between perceived gender discrimination, distrib- utive justice, procedural justice, and intentions to leave. REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequality in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experi- mental social psychology (pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press. 446 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continu- ance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Man- agement Review, 14, 20-39. Balkin, D., & Gomez-Mejia, L. (1990). Matching compensation and organizational strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 153-169. Balser, D. B. (2002). Agency in organizational inequality: Organizational behavior and individ- ual perceptions of discrimination. Work and Occupations, 29, 137-165. Barak, M. E. M., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 82-104. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psy- chological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bock, E. W. (1967). The female clergy: A case of professional marginality. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 531-539. Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. (1986). The social psychology of the Chinese people. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Psychology of the Chinese People (pp. 213-266). Hong Kong: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216. Brockner, J., & Adsit, L. (1986). The moderating impact of sex on the equity-satisfaction rela- tionship: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 585-590. Capozza, D., & Brown, R. (Eds.) (2000). Social identity processes. London: Sage. Chang, P. M. Y. (2000). The effects of organizational variation in the employment relationship on gender discrimination in denominational labor markets. In H. Z. Lopata & K. D. Henson (Eds.), Current research on occupations and professions: Unusual occupations (Vol. 11, pp. 213-240). Stamford, CT: JAI. Cohen, A. (1998). An examination of the relationship between work commitment and work out- comes among hospital nurses. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 14, 1-17. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta- analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321. Crosby, F. J. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford University Press. DeWitt, R. L., Trevino, L. K., & Mollica, K. A. (1998). The influence of eligibility on employ- ees’ reactions to voluntary workforce reductions. Journal of Management, 24, 593-613. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donalson, S. I. (2001). Effects of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 53-72. Farkas, A. J., & Tetrick, L. E. (1989). A three-wave longitudinal analysis of the causal ordering of satisfaction and commitment on turnover decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 855-868. Fields, D., Pang, M., & Chiu, C. (2000). A comparative field study of the effects of distributive and procedural justice in Hong Kong. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 547-562. Foley, S., Kidder, D. L., & Powell, G. N. (2002). The perceived glass ceiling and justice percep- tions: An investigation of Hispanic law associates. Journal of Management, 28, 471-496. Foley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE 447 Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goodman, P. S. (1974). An examination of referents used in the evaluation of pay. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 170-195. Greenberg, J. (1986). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair? In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 25-41). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Man- agement, 16, 399-432. Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Tsui, A. (1996). Reactions to perceived discrimination. Human Relations, 49, 791-813. Hatch, N. O. (1988). The professions in American history. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Univer- sity Press. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. London: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7, 81-94. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology lit- eratures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-610. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (1998). Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 323-338. Lee, C., & Farh, J. L. (1999). The effects of gender in organizational justice perception. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 133-143. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum. Major, B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimen- tal social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 293-356). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. McDuff, E. M. (2001). The gender paradox in work satisfaction and the protestant clergy. Sociol- ogy of Religion, 62, 1-21. McDuff, E. M., & Mueller, C. W. (2000). The ministry as an occupational labor market. Work and Occupations, 27, 89-116. McDuff, E. M., & Mueller, C. W. (2002). Gender differences in the professional orientations of protestant clergy. Sociological Forum, 17, 465-491. Mobley, W. H., Griffin, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizen- ship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855. Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E. (1987). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women reach the top of America’s largest corporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Nesbitt, P. D. (1996). Women Clergy. In P. J. Dubeck & K. Borman (Eds.), Women and work: A handbook (pp. 181-184). New York: Garland Publishing. 448 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT Nesbitt, P. D. (1997). Feminization of the clergy in America: Occupational and organizational perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Ngo, H. Y., Foley, S., Wong, A., & Loi, R. (2003). Who gets more of the pie? Predictors of per- ceived gender inequity at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 227-241. Ngo, H. Y., Tang, C., & Au, W. (2002). Behavioural responses to employment discrimination: A study of Hong Kong workers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 1206-1223. Ngo, H. Y., & Wong, W. C. (2002). A study on work conditions of protestant clergy in Hong Kong: A brief report. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Christian Council. Northcraft, G., & Gutek, B. A. (1993). Discrimination against women in management: Going, going, gone? or going, but never gone? In E. Fagenson (Ed.), Women in management: Trends, issues, and challenges in managerial diversity (pp. 219-245). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., & Christiansen, N. D. (1997). Support for affirmative action, justice perceptions, and work attitudes: A study of gender and racial-ethnic group differences. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 82, 376-389. Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). Professional turnover: The case of nurses. New York: Spectrum. Primeaux, P., Karri, R., & Caldwell, C. (2003). Cultural insights to justice: A theoretical per- spective through a subjective lens. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 187-199. Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organiza- tional citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159-174. Randall, C. S., & Mueller, C. W. (1995). Extensions of justice theory: Justice evaluations and employee’s reactions in a natural setting. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 178-194. Rosin, H. M., & Korabik, K. (1991). Workplace variables, affective responses, and intention to leave among women managers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 317-330. Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. (1996). Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic employees: Is diversity management a luxury or a necessity? Academy of Management Jour- nal, 39, 704-719. Schmitt, M. T., Ellemers, N., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Perceiving and responding to gender discrimination at work. In S. A. Haslam, D. Van Knippenberg, M. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 277-292). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Schneider, C. J., & Schneider, D. (1997). In their own right: The history of American clergy- women. New York: Crossroad. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, pro- cedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443. Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., & Reilly, A. H. (1996). Family structure, glass ceiling, and traditional explanations for the differential rate of turnover of female and male managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 99-118. Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 83-98. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Tremblay, M., & Roussel, P. (2001). Modelling the role of organizational justice: Effects on sat- isfaction and unionization propensity of Canadian managers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 717-737. Foley et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUSTICE 449 Trentham, S., & Larwood, L. (1998). Gender discrimination and the workplace: An examination of rational bias theory. Sex Roles, 38, 1-28. Vogel, D. L., Wester, S. R., Heesacker, M., & Madon, S. (2003). Confirming sex stereotypes: A social role perspective. Sex Roles, 48, 519-528. Wharton, A. S. (1992). The social construction of gender and race in organizations: A social identity and group mobilization perspective. In P. T. Tolbert & S. B. Bacharach (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 10, pp. 55-84). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Williams, L. J., & Hazer, J. T. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and com- mitment in turnover models: A reanalysis using latent variable structural equation methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 219-231. Younts, C. W., & Mueller, C. W. (2001). Justice processes: Specifying the mediating role of per- ceptions of distributive justice. American Sociological Review, 66, 125-145. Sharon Foley is an assistant professor of management in the LeBow College of Business at Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA. She has a Ph.D. from the University of Connecti- cut, and her research interests include diversity in the workplace and the work-family interface. Ngo Hang-yue is a professor in the Department of Management at the Chinese Univer- sity of Hong Kong. He obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. His current research interests include gender and employment, human resource management, and labor issues in China. Angela Wong is an associate professor in the Department of Modern Languages and Intercultural Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She is also a member of the Committee on Gender Studies and the Gender Research Centre of the same University. 450 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT