Abstract

The present study investigated whether the instrumental and noninstrumental voice enhance perceptions of procedural justice. The instrumental explanation proposes that the opportunity to excercise voice over procedures enhances perceptions of procedural justice because it increases the probability of obtaining a favorable outcome. In contrast, the noninstrumental explanation asserts that voice effects work irrespective of its influence on outcomes because the opportunity to speak one's view has symbolic value in itself. Previous studies attempted to test noninstrumenal hypothesis have failed because they were not successful at manipulating noninstumentality of the voice. Unlike them, the present study distinguished between direct-voice and indirect voice, and manipulated direct-voice. A 2(agency of voice: self-voice and vicarious-voice) × 2(instrumentality of voice: instrumental and noninstrumental) × 2(consideredness of voice: considered and nonconsidered) completely randomized factorial experiment was conducted with control (no-voice) condition. Results showed noninstrumental voice effects as well as instrumental effects, and the noninstumental effect was shown only in conjuction with considered voice. Thus, the present study provided the first empirical evidence indicating noninstrumental voice effects and vicarious voice effects which could be utilized a lot in an organizational setting.