Organizational Justice Literature Research Articles

The Language of Fairness: how Cross-Linguistic Norms in Spanish and English Influence Reactions to Unfair Treatment.

We integrate recent findings from the linguistics literature with the organizational justice literature to examine how the language used to encode justice violations influences fairness perceptions. The study focused on the use of non-agentive syntax to encode mistakes in Spanish ("The vase was broken") versus using agentive syntax in English ("She broke the vase") influences event fairness perceptions. We hypothesized that when justice violations are encoded using Spanish, because the non-agentive syntax makes the responsible party less salient, the event would be perceived as less unfair. In Study 1 (n = 111), English-speaking participants rated the fairness of an event in which a mistake was made and an employee received a negative outcome. They rated it as more unfair (p < .01, η2 = .06) when the scenario was presented in agentive syntax. Experiment 2 (n = 70) used native English- and Spanish-speakers who watched a video of manager making a mistake. We found that Spanish-speakers used less agentive syntax (p < .01, η2 = .21), perceived the event as less unfair (p < .001, η2 = .23), and were more willing to help the manager who made the mistake. In Experiment 3 (n = 101) we replicated this effect controlling for cross-cultural differences and native language; further, we found an interaction between entity fairness (event vs. entity) and native language (Spanish vs. English) on citizenship intentions (p < .01, η2 = .08). These results extend our understanding of how language may influence relevant workplace attitudes.

Getting to “Fair”

The vast majority of justice studies reflect the “event paradigm,” focusing on how subordinates form fairness perceptions in discrete situations and how managers can alter perceptions of isolated events. However, subordinates also form global appraisals of their managers across specific events and situations. To augment the event paradigm, research falling within the “social entity paradigm” focuses on these general justice appraisals. To date, very little theory has been developed on managerial fairness from a social entity perspective. Little is known regarding how entity perceptions are formed (i.e., how managers come to be seen as “fair managers”). To address this issue, we integrate insights from research on identity negotiation into the organizational justice literature and propose that entity perceptions evolve over time across three types of events. This justice negotiation perspective is unique in that we emphasize the role of both managers and subordinates as actors in the process, rather than employees as passive observers of managers’ actions. We also move beyond subordinate perceptions to consider the role of manager self-perceptions of fairness.

What influences managers' procedural fairness towards their subordinates? The role of subordinates' trustworthiness

Four studies examined when and why the trustworthiness of subordinates influenced their managers' procedural fairness towards them. Subordinates seen as having more benevolence trustworthiness elicited greater procedural fairness from their managers, whereas subordinates seen as having less integrity trustworthiness elicited greater procedural fairness. Moreover, the positive (negative) relationship between subordinates' benevolence (integrity) trustworthiness and managers' procedural fairness was more pronounced when subordinates were perceived as higher in ability trustworthiness. Additional moderating and mediating findings suggest that managers' tendencies to show high procedural fairness towards their subordinates reflect two different underlying motivations: (1) to help managers maintain or cultivate good working relationships with their subordinates, and (2) to maintain control over their subordinates, that is, to make it less likely for subordinates to behave in ways that disrupt managers from attaining their goals. Implications for the organizational justice and trust literatures are discussed.

Organizational justice–affective commitment relationship in a team sport setting: The moderating effect of group cohesion – ERRATUM

Using organizational justice literature, the current study aimed to examine the relationship between three dimensions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, interactional justice) and affective commitment, and to explore the moderating effect of group cohesion on the relationship between the three dimensions of justice and affective commitment in a collegiate team sport context. Data were collected from 253 college student-athletes of two Football Bowl Subdivision institutions in the Southeastern United States. Results of three hierarchical multiple regression analyses indicated that all three dimensions of justice were positively and significantly related to affective commitment. In regard to the moderating effect, group cohesion significantly moderated the distributive justice–affective commitment and the interactional–affective commitment relationships. Specifically, the two significant relationships were significantly stronger for student-athletes who reported high levels of group cohesion than their counterparts. Strategies by coaches to improve athletes’ perceptions of fairness and group cohesion and suggestions for future researches were discussed.

The Unintended Consequences of Social Accounting: Explanations and (Un)ethical Behavior

In the organizational justice literature, social accounts or explanations have been found to be a useful mechanism in enhancing employees’ justice perception, particularly when organizational decisions may seem to be unfair or lacking procedural justice (Bies, 1987; Greenberg, 1987). Drawing on behavioral ethic literature, we extend the organizational justice literature by examining (un)ethical behavior as an outcome of generating explanations and moral disengagement and guilt as mediating mechanisms. We hypothesize that generating explanations will lead to moral disengagement and subsequently engage in unethical behavior. In addition, we hypothesize that different explanation types (i.e., justification and excuse) will have differential effects on moral disengagement, guilt, and unethical behavior. The results of our study show that compared with not generating explanations, participants were more likely to engage in unethical behavior following generating an explanation. In addition, generating excuses led to higher moral disengagement than generating justification.

Riding the Fifth Wave: Organizational Justice as Dependent Variable

This chapter calls attention to a paradigmatic shift in the organizational justice literature, in which fairness serves as the dependent rather than independent variable. Drawing on two taxonomic dimensions, we structure approaches to studying fairness as a consequence rather than as a cause. One dimension refers to the focal party whose reactions are being examined (the actor, the recipient, and the observer) whereas the other consists of the nature of the reaction itself (behavior, desire, and perception). We sample selectively from the nine cells emanating from the 3×3 classification scheme, emphasizing conceptual and empirical works that advance our understanding of fairness or connect fairness with other literatures in organizational and social psychology, such as ethics, social hierarchy, trust, self-handicapping, and construal level theory. Thus, we illustrate how the study of fairness as a dependent variable enriches not only theory and research in organizational justice, but also how it may contribute to other literatures. Additionally, we consider some of the practical implications and future research possibilities related to studying fairness as a dependent variable.

The Effect of Non-Contingent Success On People's Desire for High Process Fairness

A central tenet of organizational justice theory and research is that people prefer decisions to be made with higher than with lower process fairness. The results of three studies identified a boundary condition for this general tendency. Drawing on the self-handicapping literature in social psychology, we found that people who experienced non-contingent success had less of a desire for high process fairness relative to their counterparts who experienced contingent success. Furthermore, results attributable to other independent variables, namely regulatory focus in Study 2 and self-affirmation in Study 3, shed light on the underlying mechanism: people experience non-contingent success as self- threatening and lower their desire for high process fairness in the service of protecting themselves against the threat. Theoretical implications for the organizational justice and self-handicapping literatures are discussed, as are limitations and practical implications.

Organizational justice–affective commitment relationship in a team sport setting: The moderating effect of group cohesion

AbstractUsing organizational justice literature, the current study aimed to examine the relationship between three dimensions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, interactional justice) and affective commitment, and to explore the moderating effect of group cohesion on the relationship between the three dimensions of justice and affective commitment in a collegiate team sport context. Data were collected from 253 college student-athletes of two Football Bowl Subdivision institutions in the Southeastern United States. Results of three hierarchical multiple regression analyses indicated that all three dimensions of justice were positively and significantly related to affective commitment. In regard to the moderating effect, group cohesion significantly moderated the distributive justice–affective commitment and the interactional–affective commitment relationships. Specifically, the two significant relationships were significantly stronger for student-athletes who reported high levels of group cohesion than their counterparts. Strategies by coaches to improve athletes’ perceptions of fairness and group cohesion and suggestions for future researches were discussed.

The Sensitizing Effect of Socioeconomic Conditions on Employee Reactions to Organizational Justice

According to organizational justice literature, employees respond to the level of justice they experience in their workplace by adjusting their attitudes and behaviors, including organizational cit...

Unemployment as a Moderator of the Organizational Justice-Turnover Intentions Relationship

According to organizational justice literature, one of the ways in which employees reciprocate perceived fairness of human resource practices in their workplace is with the intention to stay in the...

Organisational Justice: A Senian Perspective

In this paper, we draw inferences from the Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s book, The Idea of Justice to inform the organisational justice literature. The extant societal-level theories of justice tend to emphasise aspects that are analogous to either the procedural or distributive dimensions of organisational justice. The Senian idea of comprehensive justice is different in that it synthesises the procedural- and distributive-related dimensions at the societal-level. We theorise that the Senian notion could be applied at the organisational-level to facilitate outcomes that are actually valued by the workforce. Further, we contend that the emphasis on non-parochialism in the Senian notion of justice makes it particularly relevant to the ethics of multi-national corporations (MNCs) operating in alien cultures. To support our contention, we analyse the lean manufacturing practices of a Japanese MNC operating in India. Our case analysis demonstrates how Senian thinking helps one surface unjust outcomes that would otherwise go unacknowledged. Our analysis also offers tentative support to Senian claims about the capacity of human behaviour to undermine well-designed institutions. Concurring with the Senian view, which favours combating manifest injustice rather than fixating over designing perfectly just institutions, we derive some normative implications to advance the cause of striving for outcomes that are actually valued by the workforce.

Misery loves company: team dissonance and the influence of supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate on team cohesiveness.

The organizational justice literature has examined the effects of supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate, or a team's shared perception of the dignity and respect it receives from its supervisor, on a number of important outcomes directed at organizational authorities. Considerably less is known about the potential influence of these shared perceptions on coworker-directed outcomes. In 2 experiments, we predict that a low (unfair) supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate generates greater team cohesiveness than a high (fair) supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate. We further examine the process through which this effect occurs. Drawing from cognitive dissonance theory, we predict that low (vs. high) supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate generates greater team dissonance, or shared psychological discomfort, for team members and that this dissonance serves as an underlying mechanism through which supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate influences a team's cohesiveness. Our results demonstrate support for these predictions in that low supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate led to higher levels of both team dissonance and team cohesiveness than did high supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate, and team dissonance mediated this relationship. Implications and areas for future research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).

It is time for justice: How time changes what we know about justice judgments and justice effects

SummaryOrganizational justice is an important determinant of workplace attitudes, decisions, and behaviors. However, understanding workplace fairness requires not only examining what happens but also when it happens, in terms of justice events, perceptions, and reactions. We organize and discuss findings from 194 justice articles with temporal aspects, selected from over a thousand empirical justice articles. By examining temporal aspects, our findings enrich and sometimes challenge the answers to three key questions in the organizational justice literature relating to (i) when individuals pay attention to fairness, including specific facets, (ii) how fairness judgments form and evolve, and (iii) how reactions to perceived (in)justice unfold. Our review identifies promising avenues for empirical work and emphasizes the importance of developing temporal theories of justice. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

Be Fair, Your Employees Are Watching: A Relational Response Model of External Third‐Party Justice

There is growing theoretical recognition in the organizational justice literature that an organization's treatment of external parties (such as patients, community members, customers, and the general public) shapes its own employees’ attitudes and behavior toward it. However, the emerging third‐party justice literature has an inward focus, emphasizing perceptions of the treatment of other insiders (e.g., coworkers or team members). This inward focus overlooks meaningful “outward” employee concerns relating to how organizations treat external parties. We propose a relational response model to advance the third‐party justice literature asserting that the organization's fair treatment of external parties sends important relational signals to employees that shape their social exchange perceptions toward their employer. Supporting this proposition, in two multisource studies in separate healthcare organizations we found that patient‐directed justice had indirect effects on supervisory cooperative behavior ratings through organizational trust and organizational identification.

Cross-level effects of procedural justice perceptions on faculty trust

The progression in the organisational justice literature has extended beyond the individual employee level towards recognising the importance of one's work unit and its potential to affect individual reactions to unfairness. This study contributes to existing multilevel justice research by assessing whether aggregate (i.e. unit-level) fairness perceptions influence the relationship between individuals' perceived violation of procedural justice and trust in management. Hypotheses were tested within a sample of faculty nested within different departments of a university undergoing an institution-wide budget cuts allocation process. Results largely supported our expectations: (1) the previously established individual-level relationships between procedural justice and trust were replicated in the faculty sample; (2) department-level procedural justice perceptions were related to trust in administration and (3) department-level procedural justice perceptions were shown to moderate the relationship between individual-level procedural justice perceptions and trust in management. Theoretical and practical implications of considering the context of individual-level procedural justice perceptions and reactions are discussed.

If it's fair, I’ll share: The effect of perceived knowledge validation justice on contributions to an organizational knowledge repository

The organizational value of an electronic knowledge repository depends on the degree to which it offers high quality knowledge to its users. Validation procedures are implemented to monitor and ensure the quality of submitted content. However, if perceived as unreasonable or unfair, validation can have the unintended effect of discouraging employee contributions. Drawing on organizational justice and fairness literatures, we show that both quality perceptions and contribution behaviors are positively influenced by perceived procedural justice of validation, which, in turn, is influenced by perceived informational and interpersonal justice. Implications for organizational knowledge management research and practice are discussed.

Clarifying Criminological and Social Psychological Theory: A Second Look at the Relationship between Injustice and General Strain Theory

AbstractResearch in social psychology and criminology reveals a great deal of overlap when explaining the relationship between injustice and criminal or deviant behavior. The organizational justice literature examines how the major forms of justice (distributive, procedural, and interactional) combine and interact to influence criminal or deviant behaviors in the workplace. While general strain theory (GST) recognizes that injustice is an aspect of strain that fosters criminal coping in multiple contexts, it does not detail the additive and interactive effects that these types of injustice may have on crime. Nevertheless, GST can provide a useful theoretical lens for understanding how injustice facilitates criminal behavior. This article provides an overview of major findings regarding the relationship between injustice and crime according to a GST framework, concluding with a discussion of new directions for future research.

Physiological mechanisms that underlie the effects of interactional unfairness on deviant behavior: The role of cortisol activity.

Although experiencing unfairness is a primary source of stress, there are surprisingly few studies that have examined the physiological underpinnings of unfairness. Drawing from social self-preservation theory, we derive predictions regarding the effects of interactional unfairness on activity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) axis, which is one of the body's primary hormonal systems for responding to stress. Using an experimental design with objective physiological measures, we found support for our hypothesis that interactional unfairness triggers the release of cortisol by the HPA axis. This cortisol activity in turn mediated the effects of interactional unfairness on deviant behavior. This indirect effect remained significant after controlling for established attitudinal and self-construal mediators of the justice-deviance relationship. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for the occupational stress and organizational justice literatures.

Managers' perceptions of turnover intention using an organisational justice framework in a large-sized manufacturing company

This paper examines how an organisational justice framework can be used to explore managers’ perceptions of organisational justice and how it influences turnover intention in a large-sized manufacturing company located in the midwest region of the USA. A multiple-case study research design was used and data were collected from multiple sources, including in-depth interviews and subject matter expert reviews and reflections. Relying on in-depth case study data from eight mid-level floor managers, selected through purposive sampling, the paper conceptualises managers’ perceptions of organisational justice and how it influences turnover intention using an organisational justice framework. Understanding of the effects of organisational justice in the workplace can be used to ameliorate the negative consequences associated with managers’ perceptions of their work environment. Following, the study contributes to existing knowledge regarding manager perception of organisational justice and how it influences turnover intention within the organisational justice literature.

The relationship between injustice and crime: A general strain theory approach

PurposeConnect General Strain Theory (GST) and the organizational justice literature by examining how different types and combinations of major forms of injustice (distributive, procedural, and interactional), and resultant anger, may increase the likelihood that individuals respond to strain with crime. MethodLogit and OLS regressions are used to analyze survey data obtained from a vignette that was randomly assigned to a sample of undergraduates. The vignette presented a distributive injustice and manipulated the additional presence of procedural and interactional injustice. Respondents rated their likelihood of intending to engage in a violent act and a non-violent deviant act. ResultsAs expected, multiple types of injustice foster the intention of responding to injustice with crime. In addition to a distributive injustice, the presence of procedural injustice predicts violence, while interactional injustice predicts excessive drinking. Moreover, anger mediates the injustice-crime relationship, although this effect is more substantial for the association between procedural injustice and violence. ConclusionsThe relationship between injustice and crime is complex. Different forms of injustice can affect the propensity for crime through anger. Further research is encouraged to identify the criminogenic potential of certain types of combinations of injustice on the experience of negative emotions and crime.