The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders.

Northwestern University In this article, data collected in four studies—two experiments and two surveys— were used to test the hypothesis that the procedures used by leaders to allocate outcomes have an impact on leadership evaluations that is independent of outcome level or outcome fairness. Two studies tested this hypothesis within the context of student evaluations of teachers, and two tested it within the context of citizen evaluations of political leaders. The procedural justice hypothesis was strongly supported by all four studies. In each study, strong procedural influences on evaluation were found, influences that were independent of outcome level or outcome fairness. In addition, in both surveys of naturally occurring evaluations, variations in procedural fairness had a much greater impact on leadership endorsement than did variations in outcome level, outcome satisfaction, or outcome fairness. These findings suggest that in experimental settings subjects can be sensitive to both outcomes and procedures. In natural settings, however, individuals focus on procedures rather than outcomes in forming their evaluations of leaders. Research on outcome satisfaction has been dominated by a concern with the direct and indirect effects of outcomes on outcome satisfaction. Researchers who have followed a social exchange perspective (Homans, 1974; Thibaut Walster, Berscheid, Walster, Walster, Julian, Hollander, & Regula, 1969), work recently supplemented by a concern