Search results

The paper aims to investigate why organizations often opt to reject Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)-sponsored mediation of employment disputes (in contrast to employees who tend to readily agree to it). It is guided by recent research associated with Shapiro and Kirkman’s (1999, 2001) theory of “anticipatory justice”, whereby (in)justice is anticipated, or expected, when people think about an event they have not yet experienced whose likely fairness they are questioning. In contrast, “organizational justice” reflects people’s retrospective assessments of how fair they have been treated to date.

The paper relied upon data made available by the mediation program administered by the US EEOC. The EEOC provided the names and contact information for the officially designated EEOC contacts for each dispute. The authors distributed surveys to each of these organizational representatives and received completed surveys from 492 organizations (a response rate of 85.8 per cent).

The authors tested the extent to which organizational representatives’ decision to accept or reject mediation as a means of settling discrimination claims is influenced by representatives’ expectation of more versus less fair treatments – by the opposing party as well as by the third-party mediator – during the mediation procedure. The pattern of findings in the study support all hypotheses and, thus, also the expectation-oriented theories that have guided them.

The study relies on self-reports. However, this concern is somewhat lessened because of the salience and recency of events to the time of surveying.

The paper provides new insights on the need for organizations to implement rules, policies and procedures to constrain decision-maker choices consistent with organizational goals. The authors offer specific procedural proposals to reduce this organizational tendency to reject mediation.

Employee grievances are costly to organizations in terms of finances, reputation and to the emotional climate of the organization. Moreover, it is similarly costly to employees. This study provides new insights to better understand why employees (as opposed to organizations) are almost three times more likely to elect mediation of employment disputes. As such, it offers some promising ideas to narrow that gap.

The paper investigates a little-studied phenomenon – the differential participation rate of employees versus organizations in EEOC-sponsored mediation.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of supervisor’s unfair treatment on follower’s retributive and restorative justice perceptions. The main goal is to find asymmetric nonlinear trajectories in the relationship between the severity of unfair treatment and employees’ orientation toward retributive/restorative justice.

Using an experimental policy-capturing design that varied five levels of transgression severity (none to very high) within supervisor–subordinate relationship injustice situations, 168 employees rated their retributive/restorative justice preferences. Latent growth curve modeling was used to fit the overall patterns of change.

As hypothesized, the trajectory of restorative justice was convex and progressed in a negative exponential shape, whereas the retributive justice trajectory was concave but followed a less steep positive exponential shape.

The main limitation is a threat to the external validity of the results. Scenario-based surveys may not fully generalize to actual organizational situations.

These findings help managers to understand how unjust treatment can shape employees’ expectations and, thus, address it adequately. This is important to retain qualified personnel and to minimize workplace disengagement in the aftermath of poor treatment.

Restorative justice is of great importance for minor and moderate violations of justice.

By illustrating different trajectories, this study extends research on restorative and retributive justice in organizations. The results help to understand when people expect restoration and are motivated to punish wrongdoers.

The purpose of this study is to explore the role of anticipatory procedural justice, seriousness/type of conflict, and design of ombudsman processes with intentions to use ombudsman processes to resolve disputes.

The study was a 3 (type of conflict with three scenarios nested in each type)×3 (design of ombuds system). Subjects read scenarios and filled out Likert type survey items related to seriousness of conflict, anticipatory procedural justice, and intentions to use ombuds processes.

Perceived seriousness and anticipatory procedural justice were significantly related to intention to use ombuds process, but design of ombuds process was not.

This study was limited to scenarios of academic conflict. Research should be extended to experienced conflicts and conflicts in other contexts.

Potential users of ombuds processes are more concerned with principles of fairness and justice than the specific elements of how dispute systems are designed. While the design of a system needs to insure disputants perceive it to be fair, institutions concerned with resolving disputes between/among members should be more concerned with having a system than about promoting specific details about the design of that system.

This study advances both the study of ombuds processes/design and anticipatory procedural justice. This study provides unique findings related to both the design of ombuds processes and the conditions under which disputants might utilize the process. Additionally, procedural justice is demonstrated to be useful in forming decisions about use of processes, not just evaluations after processes have been used.

To examine the role of explanations in influencing customer perceptions of service failures, this study investigated the impact of two types of explanations: retrospective excuses and anticipatory excuses on customers' fairness perceptions and their tipping behaviors.

A 3 (explanation: absent, anticipatory, retrospective) × 2 (service recovery effort: no tangible compensation or 20 percent off the total bill) between‐participant design was used to test the hypotheses. Simulated dining experiences were enacted and videotaped to represent the six conditions.

The findings of this study imply that customer‐contact employees might be able to influence customer impressions by offering a causal explanation for a service failure.

Owing to the restaurant‐oriented focus of this study, these results may not be generalizable to other service industries. Second, our stimuli involved service encounters that were clearly inadequate in terms of interactional treatment. Third, due to the research method employed in this study the dyadic nature of the service encounter is minimized. Fourth, the student sample somewhat limits the generalizability of the results.

The results indicate that retrospective excuses might enhance customers' fairness perceptions more than anticipatory excuses. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that explanations for failures, even when combined with tangible compensation, are poor substitutes for inadequate interpersonal treatment.

The findings of this study add to the evidence that offering an explanation for a service failure can positively influence customer perceptions. Moreover, the paper introduces tipping as a surrogate of satisfaction to the service recovery literature.

This paper reports the findings of a study regarding the reactions of 492 line‐level employees from two Fortune 500 organizations in response to the organizations’ recent implementation of self‐managing work teams (SMWTs). As predicted, we found that anticipatory injustice was significantly positively related to change‐resistance and turnover intentions; and significantly negatively related to employees’ commitment; and that procedural justice can mitigate the latter relationships. Implications for managing change are discussed.

This chapter critiques the relationality between care and context to demonstrate how notions of routinised technologies are disrupted when considering the reproductive realities and situated constraints of ethnic and religious minority women. The chapter integrates ethnographic and qualitative data from two minority contexts, including maternity care provision for Orthodox Jews and how providers approach requests for sex-selective abortion (SSA) when caring for women from South Asian backgrounds. By examining responses to caesarean sections and abortion care among ethnic and religious minorities in the United Kingdom, the chapter critiques how routinised interventions are entangled in the anticipation of future reproductive potential. The idea of anticipatory futures serves as a reflection on the reproductive lifecourse, where technologies carry opportunities and implications that women and carers alike are tasked with negotiating. Taking inspiration from the reproductive justice framework, the chapter builds on a body of work that demonstrates how the concept of ‘choice’ is contingent and not inclusive of the situated constraints that can affect the reproductive lives of women from minority backgrounds. By delving into everyday reproductive constraints, the chapter raises implications for what inclusive woman-centred (or person-centred) care can involve, how providers approach ‘choice’, autonomy and justice in practice, and how their considerations reconfigure the otherwise ‘routine’ delivery of reproductive health services and technologies. Technologies increasingly invest the reproductive lifecourse with potential and anticipation, and the chapter calls on feminist scholars to understand the dilemmas posed for inclusive models of care beyond the discourse of ‘choice’.

Individuals in two separate studies participated in a self‐appraisal activity in which they were randomly assigned to three conditions promising different levels of potential influence on the evaluation of a written assignment. Self‐report data regarding perceptions of voice impact, voice appreciation, and procedural and distributive justice were analyzed. Results of MANOVA and regression suggest voice appreciation, measuring value expressive effects, was positively and significantly related to perceptions of justice, while the self appraisal's perceived impact on a valued outcome was not. However, the impact of value expressive effects on perceptions of fairness was reduced somewhat with higher instrumental possibilities for voice among undergraduate students. Implications for ongoing research and practical applications are discussed regarding the use of various forms of self appraisal.

The use of teams has increased significantly over the past two decades, with recent estimates suggesting that between 50% and 90% of employees work in some kind of team. This chapter examines the implications of this trend for the literature on organizational justice – the study of fairness perceptions and effects in the workplace. In particular, we explore three specific research questions: (1) Will the justice effects observed in individual contexts generalize to team contexts and member-directed reactions? (2) Will the justice experienced by specific teammates have direct or interactive effects on members’ own reactions? (3) Will the justice experienced by the team as a whole impact reactions at the team level of analysis? Our review of almost 30 studies suggests that each question can be answered in the affirmative, illustrating that team contexts can magnify the importance of justice in organizations.

Sudden crises, known as environmental jolts, can cripple unprepared organizations. In recent years, financial jolts have led many organizations, particularly government organizations, to respond by furloughing employees. Furloughs can engender various responses in employees that can lead to negative work outcomes for both the employees and the organization. Previous research shows that the implementation of strategic human resource management (SHRM) practices, such as commitment-based systems, can mitigate the negative effects of environmental jolts. Utilizing the knowledge-based view and affective events theory, we propose a multilevel model where SHRM practices moderate employee affective responses to furloughs, which, in turn, drive subsequent employee behavioral outcomes.

This study aims to examine whether the development of students’ sustainability competences is dependent on how courses are delivered at higher education institutions (HEIs). It further investigates to what extent such competences can affect students’ belief in the new environmental paradigm (NEP) and pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs).

The data was collected through an online survey conducted in 2021 among the students of an international research university based in The Netherlands. The final sample (N = 262) consisted of all the students who completed the survey and claimed that they had taken at least one course that addressed sustainability. Linear regression models were used to examine the relationship of sustainability education and students’ competences, as well as their pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors.

The findings reveal that the strength of universal, broadly applicable pedagogies is positively related to the development of students’ sustainability mindset/framework as well as their sustainability action/communication. The results also reveal that developing students’ competences on sustainability mindset/framework is directly related to their belief in the NEP and PEBs.

To develop an integrative pedagogical approach requires understanding how a HEI’s engagement in sustainability can impact students’ attitudes and behaviors, but little research has actually measured the development of students’ competences. This study fills this gap through empirically testing how different pedagogical approaches can affect students’ sustainability competences differently. This has important implications for systematically linking pedagogical approaches to teaching practices or concrete learning objectives.