Search results
1 – 10 of over 3000Russell Cropanzano, Marion Fortin and Jessica F. Kirk
Justice rules are standards that serve as criteria for formulating fairness judgments. Though justice rules play a role in the organizational justice literature, they have seldom…
Abstract
Justice rules are standards that serve as criteria for formulating fairness judgments. Though justice rules play a role in the organizational justice literature, they have seldom been the subject of analysis in their own right. To address this limitation, we first consider three meta-theoretical dualities that are highlighted by justice rules – the distinction between justice versus fairness, indirect versus direct measurement, and normative versus descriptive paradigms. Second, we review existing justice rules and organize them into four types of justice: distributive (e.g., equity, equality), procedural (e.g., voice, consistent treatment), interpersonal (e.g., politeness, respectfulness), and informational (e.g., candor, timeliness). We also emphasize emergent rules that have not received sufficient research attention. Third, we consider various computation models purporting to explain how justice rules are assessed and aggregated to form fairness judgments. Fourth and last, we conclude by reviewing research that enriches our understanding of justice rules by showing how they are cognitively processed. We observe that there are a number of influences on fairness judgments, and situations exist in which individuals do not systematically consider justice rules.
Details
Keywords
Jerald Greenberg, Marie-Élène Roberge, Violet T Ho and Denise M Rousseau
In response to demands and opportunities of the labor market, contemporary employers and employees voluntarily are entering into highly customized agreements regarding nonstandard…
Abstract
In response to demands and opportunities of the labor market, contemporary employers and employees voluntarily are entering into highly customized agreements regarding nonstandard employment terms. We refer to such idiosyncratic deals as “i-deals,” acknowledging that these arrangements are intended to benefit all parties. Examples of i-deals include an employee with highly coveted skills who is compensated more generously than other employees doing comparable work, and an employee who is granted atypically flexible working hours to accommodate certain personal life demands. The nonstandard nature of i-deals is likely to prompt questions about the fairness of the arrangement among three principal stakeholders – employees who receive the i-deal, managers with whom the i-deal is negotiated, and the co-workers of these employees and managers. We analyze issues of fairness that arise in the relationships among all three pairings of these stakeholders through the lenses of four established forms of organizational justice – distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice. Our discussion sheds light on previously unexplored nuances of i-deals and identifies several neglected theoretical issues of organizational justice. In addition to highlighting these conceptual advances, we also discuss methods by which the fairness of i-deals can be promoted.
Leigh Plunkett Tost and E. Allan Lind
Purpose – In this chapter, we seek to resolve the conflicting implications that emerge from status quo theories of justice, on the one hand, and theories of distributive…
Abstract
Purpose – In this chapter, we seek to resolve the conflicting implications that emerge from status quo theories of justice, on the one hand, and theories of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on the other. Specifically, status quo theories depict individuals as resistant to perceptions of injustice in their social environments, whereas theories of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice depict individuals as quite sensitive to the justice that characterizes outcomes and treatment.
Methodology/approach – We build on previous research on the justice judgment process to consider ways in which the findings from these two research streams can be integrated.
Findings – We suggest that the two overarching streams of research have identified and empirically explored two distinct modes of justice evaluation: a system justification mode and a system critique mode.
Originality/value of chapter – We develop a model of the justice judgment process that specifies the circumstances under which each of the two modes is likely to operate.
Bruce Barry and Debra L. Shapiro
Justice research has established that voice enhances procedural justice—a phenomenon known as the ‘voice effect’—through both instrumental and non‐instrumental mechanisms…
Abstract
Justice research has established that voice enhances procedural justice—a phenomenon known as the ‘voice effect’—through both instrumental and non‐instrumental mechanisms. However, limited research attention has been devoted to the underlying motivational bases for the operation of one or the other explanatory mechanism in a given situation. We report the findings of two laboratory studies examining situational, motivational, and attributional underpinnings for the voice effect. We found that motivation to voice varied with characteristics of the authority to whom a grievance is directed. In both studies, an interaction revealed that non‐instrumental motivation for voice is more important when instrumental motivation is lacking or unavailable. In Study 2, we introduce the role of social attributions into research on the voice effect, finding that grievants' judgments about their objectives in using voice vary with the attributions they make about the motives behind the authority's actions. We discuss implications of our findings for both theory and practice.
In the current contribution I suggest that reactions to decision-making procedures often are influenced by egocentric concerns. Such egocentrism can be inferred from various…
Abstract
In the current contribution I suggest that reactions to decision-making procedures often are influenced by egocentric concerns. Such egocentrism can be inferred from various theories that assume people's procedural justice judgments to be based on the implications of decision-making procedures for themselves instead of for others. The present review considers evidence for two propositions: (1) People respond more negatively to procedural injustice when it happens to themselves than when it happens to others, and (2) an egocentric self-focus amplifies people's fairness-based responses to decision-making procedures. It is concluded that egocentric motives play a central role in procedural justice effects.
Deanna Geddes, Kimberly Merriman, Gerald Ross and Denise Dunlap‐Hinkler
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…
Abstract
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.
Donald E. Conlon and William H. Ross
In a simulated organizational conflict, concession behavior by a negotiator's opponent was manipulated to examine how subsequent third party intervention would influence…
Abstract
In a simulated organizational conflict, concession behavior by a negotiator's opponent was manipulated to examine how subsequent third party intervention would influence negotiator perceptions of process control, decision control, distributive justice, and the third party. Negotiators whose opponents made large concessions reciprocated by also making large concessions, suggesting a high level of movement toward agreement by the disputants; subjects whose opponents made few concessions reciprocated in kind, resulting in little movement toward agreement. Third parties, however, imposed outcomes on all negotiators prior to negotiated agreements. Perceptions of decision control, distributive justice, and the necessity of third party intervention were influenced by whether disputants were close to reaching an agreement on their own or not. Outcome imposed by the third party influenced almost all measures. The study suggests that behavior by the disputants (in the form of movement toward agreement), and not just behavior by the third party, can influence ratings of both procedures and outcomes.
A defining feature of international business is the necessity for people from diverse cultural backgrounds to interact and collaborate but intercultural interaction is difficult…
Abstract
A defining feature of international business is the necessity for people from diverse cultural backgrounds to interact and collaborate but intercultural interaction is difficult and may give rise to disagreement and conflict. I have been working on the dynamics that promote positive intercultural interaction in the international business context, and two streams of my research, one empirical and the other conceptual, are reviewed here. The first stream is concerned with fairness issues surrounding the pay disparity between locals and expatriates in multinational enterprises operating in China, which has implications for MNC operations in other emerging economies. My research has shown that the pay disparity is associated with negative reactions from local employees but some management practices associated with the relationship between locals and expatriates, attributions made by locals, and salient norms about the pay disparity can buffer such negative reactions. In this research program, the focus is not on the actual interaction between locals and expatriates. To address this gap, a conceptual framework is presented, which provides insight about the factors that contribute to positive interaction between locals and expatriates. This paper ends with implications for future research on intercultural interaction in the MNC context.
Details
Keywords
Steven L. Bidder, Chia‐Chi Chang and Tom R. Tyler
This study compares the role of procedural justice in motivating organizational retaliatory behaviors between two employee samples, one American and the other Taiwanese. The…
Abstract
This study compares the role of procedural justice in motivating organizational retaliatory behaviors between two employee samples, one American and the other Taiwanese. The cross‐national generality of procedural justice effects on retaliation are examined with regard to three issues. First, this study considers the comparability of the link between procedural justice and retaliation between the two national samples. Second, it examines whether procedural justice effects on retaliation are mediated by organizational identity in both samples, as has been found in previous research based on U.S. employees (Tyler & Blader, 2000). Third, it investigates whether procedural justice is defined similarly in the two samples. Results indicate moderate cultural variation in the influence of procedural justice on retaliation and in the mediating role of organizational identity. Specifically, although procedural justice was slightly less predictive of retaliation among the Taiwanese sample, the association between justice and retaliation for these respondents was fully (as opposed to partially) mediated by organizational identity. Significant national differences also emerged in the meaning of procedural justice. Taiwanese employees demonstrated a balanced influence of relational and instrumental concerns when making overall procedural fairness perceptions, while U.S. employees defined procedural fairness primarily in terms of relational concerns.
Changyu Wang, Yimeng Zhang and Jiaojiao Feng
Exploitative leadership as a form of destructive leadership may hinder employees' knowledge sharing. However, how and when exploitative leadership impacts employees' knowledge…
Abstract
Purpose
Exploitative leadership as a form of destructive leadership may hinder employees' knowledge sharing. However, how and when exploitative leadership impacts employees' knowledge sharing is under explored. Drawing on fairness heuristic theory, this study aims to construct a moderated mediation model to investigate the impacting mechanisms of exploitative leadership on employees' knowledge sharing by introducing organization-based self-esteem as a mediator and perceived organizational procedural justice as a moderator.
Design/methodology/approach
To test the research model, data were collected from 148 full-time employees at two-time points and analyzed using partial least square-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM).
Findings
Exploitative leadership has a direct negative impact on knowledge sharing. Through the mediation of organization-based self-esteem, exploitative leadership has an indirect impact on knowledge sharing. Organizational procedural justice can weaken the indirect negative relationship between exploitative leadership and knowledge sharing via organization-based self-esteem.
Originality/value
This study is the first to introduce fairness heuristic theory to explain the relationship between exploitative leadership and knowledge sharing. Findings about the mediating role of organizational self-esteem and the moderating role of organizational procedural justice in the relationship between exploitative leadership and knowledge sharing can uncover the black box of how exploitative leadership affects knowledge sharing.
Details