Legalistic organizations: a comment on empirical investigations into procedural justice in organizations

Abstract

The empirical studies presented by Mossholder, Bennett and Martin (1998) and Chen, Meindl and Hui (1998) are important contributions to our growing awareness of the role of procedural justice in organizations. The Chen et al. (1998) study demonstrates that, although situational factors can determine the distribution of rewards within an organization, they do not override the effects of culture and cultural norms. The Mossholder et al. (1998) study demonstrates that, while the context of procedural justice can explain job satisfaction at the unit level, it cannot account for organizational commitment by individual employees. Together, the papers provide a powerful statement of the way in which law, and legal metaphors, are shaping organizations. From a macro theoretical point of view these empirical studies provide important glimpses into larger social processes which link law, organizations and society. Foremost, perhaps, is the observation that our growing interest in procedural justice within organizations serves as a confirmation, of sorts, of Max Weber's original thesis about the increased rationalization of human experience in modern society and the important role of both law and organizations in that process. A second, but equally important theme represented in these works, is Coleman's (1974) observation about the rising importance of business organizations in society and their displacement of the Church and the State in defining individual identity. Weber suggested that the rational-legal authority system is the dominant institution in modem society. The organization, particularly the bureaucratic organization, best exemplifies this authority because organizations are rational in the sense that they are directed to instrumental goals, and they are legal in their emphasis on formal and explicit rules and procedures. The process of rationalization entails a movement from informal controls based on normative principles of socialization, to formal controls based on explicit rules and regulations. This is the basis of what Sitkin and Bies (1994) have called 'legalistic organization'. A number of macro organization theorists, particularly within institutional theory, have described the diffusion of legalistic organizational practices across North American organizations. Baron, Dobbin and Jennings (1986) provide an account of the spread of formal personnel practices through large U.S. corporations during and after the Second World War. Similarly, Edelman (1990) has demonstrated the expansion of due process in the American workplace. This move toward formal rules and a legal metaphor for thinking about organizations is even reflected in the language used in North American corporations which is becoming increasingly like the 'legalese' we see in contracts and legal opinions (Stutman and Putnam, 1994). Evidence for the increasing legalization of organizational behavior is provided in both empirical studies presented here. The Mossholder et al. (1998) study, in fact, forms a conclusion already familiar to the legal community-that in matters of fairness and equity, justice must