Abstract
The justice literature has coalesced around the notion that actors (e.g., supervisors) tend to utilize the norm of equity for resource allocation decisions because it is generally considered most fair when employees who contribute more to the organization receive more resources. Yet, actors might sometimes utilize a need norm to allocate resources to those most in need. Studies that have addressed need-based resource allocations have assumed a relatively straightforward conceptualization of need. However, research from related areas suggests that multiple characteristics of the need itself could trigger actors’ use of a need norm to allocate resources. We advance a theoretical framework that outlines various need characteristics that drive actors’ use of a need norm. The framework draws on the processes outlined in attribution theory and integrates those with the content domains addressed in fairness theory. A discussion of the implications for justice, attribution, and fairness theory research follows.
Highlights
The justice literature has coalesced around the notion that actors tend to utilize the norm of equity for resource allocation decisions because it is generally considered most fair when employees who contribute more to the organization receive more resources
Distributive justice is evaluated in light of allocation norms that define whether distributions are perceived as fair, such as equity, equality, and need
We developed the attributional–counterfactual theory of need by integrating two supplementary theories: fairness theory, which outlines the cognitions used by individuals to judge the fairness of actions (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001), and attribution theory, which describes the processes underlying causal explanations for events (Weiner, 2006)
Summary
Fairness Theory Fairness theory posits that fairness judgments flow from assessments of an authority figure’s accountability. An employee is likely to decide that a written reprimand is unfair because it will cost him a salary increase that he was expecting, his supervisor could have talked to him and pursued an alternative resolution before applying this punishment, and such a severe punishment was inappropriate for the offense These counterfactuals (known as the would, could, and should counterfactuals) suggest that judgments of fairness are driven by individuals’ concerns in three primary domains: states of well-being (for would counterfactuals), individual conduct (for could counterfactuals), and moral or ethical principles (for should counterfactuals; Colquitt et al, 2005). Fairness theory’s focus on cognition (in the form of counterfactual thinking) was intended as a bridge between the justice and emotion literatures (Cropanzano et al, 2000), yet the specific emotion(s) relevant to the use of various distributive justice allocation norms (in general) and the need norm (in particular) remain unaddressed This may be a fruitful area of inquiry given the large role of affect in fairness phenomena (Colquitt et al, 2013). ACT builds on fairness theory and attribution theory to describe what characteristics of a need might elicit the use of the need norm and how this process occurs
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
