On the Value of Considering Specific Facets of Interactional Justice Perceptions.

Alexandre J. S. Morin,Séverine Chevalier,Nicolas Gillet,Evelyne Fouquereau,Hélène Coillot,Tiphaine Huyghebaert

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00812

Abstract

This research seeks to verify the value of considering specific perceptions of informational and interpersonal justice over and above employees’ global perceptions of interactional justice. In Study 1 (Sample 1: n = 592; Sample 2: n = 384), we examined the underlying structure of workers’ perceptions of interactional justice by contrasting first-order and bifactor representations of their ratings. To investigate the true added value of specific informational and interpersonal justice perceptions once global interactional justice perceptions are taken into account, we also considered the relations between these global and specific perceptions and various outcomes. Our findings revealed that workers’ perceptions of interactional justice simultaneously reflected a global interactional justice factor and two specific facets (interpersonal and informational justice). In Study 2, we identified employees’ latent justice profiles based on their global (interactional justice) and specific (interpersonal and informational justice) levels of interactional justice. Five different interactional justice profiles were identified: low interpersonal, high interpersonal/average informational, high informational, normative, and high interpersonal/low informational. Employees’ perceptions of transformational leadership are a significant predictor of profile membership. Finally, the five profiles were significantly associated with anxiety and emotional exhaustion.

Highlights

Numerous studies in the organizational and managerial literature (Colquitt et al, 2001) have been conducted to examine workers’ perceptions of organizational justice
The goodness-of-fit indices of the measurement models are presented in Table 1 (Sample 1: top section; Sample 2: middle section). These results showed that, in both samples, an acceptable level of model fit was achieved both for the a priori two-factor Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) and bifactor CFA models, whereas the onefactor model failed to provide an even minimally acceptable level of model fit. These findings supported the superiority of the bifactor CFA model relative to that of the twofactor CFA model (Sample 1: comparative fit index (CFI) = + 0.015; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = + 0.013; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = -0.013; Sample 2: CFI = + 0.024; TLI = + 0.023; RMSEA = -0.019), a conclusion that was supported by the observation of lower values on all information criteria for the bifactor CFA solution
A comparison between first-order and bifactor solutions supported the superiority of the bifactor CFA model: a betterfitting model coupled with a well-defined G factor representing employees’ global interactional justice perceptions coexisting with S factors reflecting the unique facets of their interpersonal and interactional justice perceptions left unexplained by the G factor

Summary

Introduction

Numerous studies in the organizational and managerial literature (Colquitt et al, 2001) have been conducted to examine workers’ perceptions of organizational justice (i.e., the extent to which they are fairly treated by organizational authorities; Colquitt, 2001). The distributive (i.e., the fairness linked to the distribution of resources and rewards) and procedural (i.e., the fairness linked to organizational procedures and processes) facets of organizational justice (Colquitt, 2001) are not easy to directly influence by managers, and their optimization often requires organizationwide interventions (Rineer et al, 2017). This is not the case for the interactional facet of organizational justice Research shows differentiated patterns of associations between these two components with a variety of external criteria (Au and Leung, 2016)

Methods

Results

Conclusion