Search results

The paper examines various organizational justice theories and three landmark cases which illustrate that with enabling legislation, the violations of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, and interactional justice) give rise to lawsuits on the part of the unfairly treated employees. These lawsuits, if successful, bring about various remedies. Violations of each justice component have unfavorable consequences. As Folger and Cropanzano's (1998) fairness theory integrates prior organizational justice theories and various justice concepts such as distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, each case's justice violations are assessed in accordance with fairness theory. Each successful case results in a landmark monetary settlement and court‐mandated remedial initiatives.

A significant amount of research has examined the relationship between transformational leadership and positive follower outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and task performance. Building on the social exchange theory and referent cognitions theory, this paper explores the propositions that transformational leadership, OCB and task performance relationship are mediated by leader member exchange (LMX) and distributive justice. The purpose of this paper is to explore the underlying mechanism that has a potential to influence the transformational leadership and follower outcomes relationship. The authors also discuss the implications for management theory and practice.

The primary goal of the research is theory building, so the paper is using a conceptual research design.

The authors find the assumption that the supervisors evaluate the performance of their employees and the performance evaluation has a strong influence on the allocation of rewards to be reasonable. Despite being reasonable, in some circumstances, the rewards allocation maybe dictated by upper management or the HR department; thus, the authors will need to gather a few more details in the survey to address this limitation.

This study presents a research model which emphasizes on the role of LMX and distributive justice in the linkage of transformational leadership and positive work outcomes. More specifically, the authors argue that follower outcomes such as OCB and task performance are a result of not only the high-quality LMX between transformational leaders and followers but also the distributive justice perceptions of followers.

This study examines the contribution of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice in Federal budget decision-making to Federal managers' commitment to the Federal government as an employing organization. A total of 1,358 useable surveys were received from a sample of 9,643 managers. Reliability coefficients were acceptable (> .70), and intercorrelations consistent with previous studies. Hierarchical regression analysis supported only maineffect relationships between procedural justice and interactional justice and managers' organizational commitment. No support was found for a main effect relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment -- or for any interactive effects. Contrary to models of bureaucratic behavior based on economic theory, these findings may suggest that Federal managers may be motivated primarily by psychological outcomes of budget decisions.

We examine the evolution of labor arbitration decisions between 1988 and 2018 in which a union-represented employee was alleged to have committed sexual harassment. We find that management punished sexual harassment more stringently over time and that arbitrators became more sensitive to whether or not good procedure was followed by management over time. Distributive justice was also a major concern for arbitrators. The results suggest that it is essential for management to exercise procedural justice in disciplining employees, but that it is just as important for management to consider distributive justice when it comes to imposing discipline for inappropriate behavior.

This focal chapter deals with the understanding of important ethical theories used in executive moral reasoning such as teleology, deontology, distributive justice and corrective justice, virtue ethics versus ethics of trust, from the perspectives of intrinsic versus instrumental good, moral worth versus moral obligation, and moral conscience versus moral justification. Ethical and moral reasoning will power executives to identify, explore, and resolve corporate moral dilemma, especially in the wake of emerging gray market areas where good and evil, right or wrong, just or unjust, and truth and falsehood cannot be easily distinguished. We focus on developing corporate skills of awareness of ethical values and moral imperatives in current otherwise highly commoditized and turbulent human, market, and corporate situations. The challenges of morality are multifaceted and diverse. Professionals usually have self-discipline and self-regulation abilities, ego strength, and social skills. Morality in the professions is not concerned with the issues of rudimentary socialization; rather, the issues involve deciding between conflicting values, where each value represents something good in itself. There are problems in both knowing what is right, good, true, and just on the one hand, and on the other hand, in doing what is right and avoiding wrong, doing good and avoiding evil, and being fair and just while avoiding being unfair and unjust. Several contemporary cases will illustrate the challenging dimensions of ethical and moral reasoning, moral judgment and moral justification embedded in executive decision processes, and corporate growth and profitability ventures.

This review article focuses on the factors that affect the selection and implementation of three principles of distributive justice (i.e., equity, equality, and need) to reward systems in group and organizational settings. After presenting an overview of the assumptions, goals, and possible consequences associated with each of the three perspectives, the article then describes the moderating factors influencing distribution rule preferences across four levels of analysis: (1) the interorganizational, (2) the intraorganizational, (3) the work group, and (4) the individual. Some of the variables discussed include cross‐cultural differences, reward system implementation, task interdependency, work group climate, and individual characteristics. This material is then summarized through the use of a new conceptual model for describing allocation rule preferences. The article concludes with suggestions for future research.

This study evaluates the integrative role of justice theory, religiosity, satisfaction and trust in influencing customer loyalty to Islamic mobile banking.

This study surveyed 370 customers who used Islamic mobile banking. The authors employed SEM-PLS to estimate the proposed model and answer the hypotheses.

Empirical facts show that distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice can increase loyalty through the role of satisfaction. On the other hand, distributive justice, procedural justice and religiosity can predict loyalty through the role of trust.

This study encourages Islamic mobile banking providers to improve the quality of benefit distribution, the application of procedures and interaction among all levels of users. In addition, religious education innovation is also important to increase customer activity in using Islamic mobile banking.

Until now, none of the studies have estimated the loyalty of Islamic mobile banking users based on the integrative roles of justice theory, religiosity, satisfaction and trust. It, therefore, highlights the originality of this study.

Henry George was acclaimed by the general public and disdained by the professional economists, largely for the same reasons. For the general public, progress, and poverty seemed to go to the heart of the matter, treating economics as a question of justice. But for the professionals, George was often regarded as a dangerous radical, even though he reasoned within the tradition of Smith, Ricardo, and Mill. However, he conducted his studies at the precise moment of the marginalist revolution, just as the profession was undergoing a transition from political economy to economics. For the former, economic science was embedded in particular political and cultural systems, while the latter aspired to be a pure science with its own mathematics. While some of the marginalists, such as Walras and Marshall, could maintain a commitment to justice, many others found the whole question superfluous. The purpose of this paper is to argue, however, that without some notion of justice, and especially justice in property relations, a complete description of an economy is impossible.

The paper examines three issues: the relation between distributive and corrective justice, the relation between normative and positive science, and the relation between equity and equilibrium.

The paper finds that, without some notion of equity, equilibrium is unattainable. And this relation can be shown to be present in the very starting conditions of neoclassical formulations, which initial conditions are, alas, too often forgotten.

The paper provides an intriguing view of the neoclassicists' different stance in regard to justice, pointing out that William Stanley Jevons, for example, explicitly states that “feelings” of justice are “more or less extraneous to a theory of economics,” and expands upon this argument.

This study examines how the structure of referent networks, or the social network defined by knowing others’ reward levels, affects perceptions of distributive justice. The homogeneity of rewards in the referent network, the amount of inequality in the referent network, and an individual’s reward level are all associated with distributive justice perceptions. Several moderating relationships are also examined.

We relied on data from a controlled laboratory experiment to test a series of theoretically derived hypotheses.

The study shows that several aspects about the structure of the referent network are important for shaping perceptions of distributive justice. Specifically, the reward heterogeneity and amount of inequality in the network are found to be negatively associated with distributive justice, while reward levels are found to be positively associated with distributive justice. Furthermore, the effect of reward levels on distributive justice is moderated by both (i) the presence of a referential standard for rewards and (ii) the amount of inequality in the network.

While being among the first studies to demonstrate effects of referent networks on perceptions of fairness, it is unclear how group memberships combine with referent network effects and which factors may blur these relationships in uncontrolled environments. Subsequent scholarship on the effect of referent networks on justice perceptions should leverage multiple data sources.

Research on the effects of referents on justice perceptions has focused on particular referent individuals. We recast this issue in terms of referent networks, which highlights the empirical reality that individuals have a variety of sources or alters which could operate as referents.

This paper aims to explore the relationship between procedural, interpersonal, informational, and distributive justice and negotiator outcome satisfaction and desire for future negotiations (DFNs).

This research invokes and builds theories suggesting a link between perceptions of fair treatment and counterfactual generation. Data come from freely interacting negotiating dyads comprised of undergraduate students.

One's own outcomes obtained, procedural, informational, and distributive justice perceptions each uniquely predicted negotiator outcome satisfaction. Procedural and informational justice perceptions also indirectly affected outcome satisfaction through their effect on distributive justice perceptions. In turn, outcome satisfaction, and informational and interpersonal justice perceptions each uniquely predicted DFNs.

While this study reveals an important set of effects for study, it is correlational in nature. Future research should experimentally manipulate fair treatment to provide a true experiment and should also test the proposed mediators.

This paper suggests that listening to the other party, treating him or her with respect and dignity, and explaining oneself can have powerful consequences for the other party's outcome satisfaction and DFNs. Each of these, in turn, can affect one's own long run well‐being.

This is the first empirical study linking procedural and informational justice perceptions and negotiator outcome satisfaction. It is one of the few studies exploring a unique relationship between outcome satisfaction and procedural justice and may be the only one doing so with interactional justice in any setting. It investigates the effects of perceived fair treatment among relative equals rather than in the context of superiors and subordinates.