Search results

From the perspective of customer segmentation, most scholars show more interest in the very important person (VIP) customer’s service experience and satisfaction; however, the way in which ordinary customers view VIP services has received less attention. Based on fairness heuristic theory and social comparison theory, this study aims to examine the impact of the social visibility of VIP services on ordinary customers’ satisfaction and explored the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions of this effect.

Two experiments were conducted, Study 1 verified the main effect and mediating effect, Study 2 tested the moderating effect.

The results show that the social visibility of VIP services decreases ordinary customers’ satisfaction and perceived fairness mediates this effect. The deservingness of VIP status moderates the connection between social visibility and perceived fairness.

This research changes the objects of VIP services research and focuses on ordinary customers as its main group and expands the scope of social comparisons among customers.

The findings expand the scope and perspective of research on VIP services and provide guidance to service providers to reduce ordinary customers’ feelings of unfairness so as to improve customer satisfaction.

This study explores the effect of the social visibility of VIP services on ordinary customer satisfaction from the perspective of perceived fairness, as well as the underlying mechanism and boundary conditions of the effect.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Using the combined theoretical umbrella of organizational legitimacy theory, service-dominant logic, fairness heuristic theory and two-factor theory, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of different food recall strategies (recall proactiveness and compensation) in terms of both how consumers react (perceived organizational legitimacy and purchase intention) and how recall norms would influence the effectiveness in three countries. In addition to the reporting of important results, this paper provides implications for food companies to handle effectively the recalls, especially when the recalls are cross-country.

A 2 compensation (high vs low) ×2 recall strategy (proactive vs passive) scenario experiment was conducted in Hong Kong, the USA and Mainland China. After checking the effectiveness of manipulation, the paper tested the main effect and interaction effect of recall proactiveness and compensation on perceived organizational legitimacy and purchase intention. In addition, the mediating effect of perceived organizational legitimacy between recall strategies and purchase intention was also tested.

Significant main effect, interaction and mediation effect were found across the three countries with a different pattern. For the USA and Mainland China which have strong recall norms, the interaction found followed the predictions of the two-factory theory. However, the pattern found in Hong Kong, which has weak recall norms, followed the predictions of the fairness heuristic theory. Full mediation effect of perceived organizational legitimacy between compensation and purchase intention was found in the USA and Mainland China, while it was only partial in Hong Kong. For the mediation between proactiveness and purchase intention, full mediation was found in Hong Kong and the USA, while it was only partial in Mainland China.

First, this study differentiated food recall strategy into two dimensions – recall proactiveness and compensation. Second, this study tested the applicability of two-factor theory and fairness heuristic theory in recalls by testing the competing hypotheses proposed according to the two theories. Finally, this study can further help our understanding of the recall effectiveness across different recall norms.

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.

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.

This research aims to examine how source of funds (paying with company’s funds versus personal funds) affects buyer’s judgments of price fairness and via these judgments, buyer’s response to prices.

A scenario-based experiment is used (N = 200). To test the hypotheses, the authors run moderated mediation regression analyses with the help of the PROCESS macro.

Drawing on fairness heuristics theory, the authors hypothesize and find that relative to when paying with personal funds, when paying with company’s funds, the perceived price difference plays a less significant role, whereas the perceived social acceptability of the pricing practice underlying the price difference plays a more important role in shaping price fairness judgments and, via these judgments, buyer’s response to prices.

The findings generate advice for companies that serve both the business and personal segments (e.g. airlines and hotels). Buyers in the personal segment typically pay with their own money. To persuade these buyers that a price is fair, it is crucial to show that the price represents a good deal for them. Buyers in the business segment often pay with company’s fund. Companies have more flexibility in charging different prices, but they should make sure that the reasons for the price difference are socially acceptable.

This research shows how the relative role of price difference versus social acceptability in price fairness judgments varies as a function of source of funds and how an inconsistency between price difference and its economic impact affects price fairness judgments.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether perceptions of distributive, procedural and interactional justice can explain the frequently reported low organizational commitment of managers in corporate mergers. Specifically, it aims to examine whether each of the justice dimensions is significantly and uniquely related to affective commitment, which of the justice dimensions has the strongest relationship with the criterion, and whether instrumental evaluations or trust might function as a mediator.

A total of 128 managers from 37 companies completed a questionnaire. They had been involved in domestic or European mergers or acquisitions, which varied in the application of fairness rules.

Although each fairness dimension correlated positively with affective commitment, only interactional justice showed a unique relationship with it. Results indicate that both instrumental evaluations and trust can function as a mediator.

Because of the cross‐sectional design, conclusions about the causal order of the variables cannot be drawn.

The authors recommend that top managers should pay extra attention to timely, candid and specific internal communication with thorough and reasonable explanation of decisions, as well as the respectful treatment of managers. Moreover, the results indicate that managers reacted positively to fairness because it conveys positive relational signals, and because one can gain personal advantages through fair outcomes and processes.

The organizational justice approach has not yet been applied, to the authors' knowledge, in quantitative field studies of mergers. Furthermore, this paper offers a contribution to the literature on fairness heuristic theory.

Purpose – We outline a theoretical model of the emergence of justice climate in groups, teams, and organizations, and in doing so integrate multiple justice perspectives (e.g., affective events, fairness heuristic, deonance, justice integration, multifoci justice, overall justice).

Approach – In this theoretical paper, we propose that justice climate is spawned at the level of the event; individuals experience discrete events and then use their emotional reactions related to these events as information in forming fairness judgments. Cognitive processes explicated in justice integration theory, fairness heuristic theory, and fairness theory also play a role. Over time, these judgments about various perpetrators – which may include the evaluation of outcomes, procedures, information, and interpersonal treatment – are aggregated to form individual-level, stable judgments regarding the fairness of exchange partners with whom employees interact (e.g., supervisors, coworkers, and customers). Through socialization and social-information processing, and influenced by organizational structure and social networks, these individual multifoci justice perceptions merge to form multifoci justice climate, which over time lead to the formation of shared cognitions of overall justice climate.

Value – The chapter proposes a temporal model of how discrete events at the individual level merge to form individuals’ multifoci justice perceptions, shared multifoci justice climate, and ultimately overall justice climate. The chapter offers multiple propositions and concludes with recommendations for empirically testing the model.

Most of the past studies related to organisational justice focussed on different types of justice, such as procedural justice, distributive justice and interactional justice either separately or collectively. Still, further investigation on the overall concept of fairness is required to extend theoretical generalisability. Moreover, researchers argued that overall fairness rather than a specific type represents more concrete situation about employees’ perception of fairness within an organisation. Considering this, the purpose of this paper is to examine the mediating effect of overall fairness perception (OFP) in relation to workplace outcome as well as its predictive ability on employees’ attitude and behaviour in term of psychological ownership and citizenship behaviour.

A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed among the employees of financial institutions in Malaysia, which yielded 150 completed usable responses. Smart PLS (version 3) software and SPSS were utilised in order to analyse the data.

The results revealed that overall fairness plays a crucial role as a mediator as well as a predictor. Limitations and future research directions are also discussed.

This study provides useful insights for the mangers of financial institutions. It also suggests strategies about how to manage justice and workplace outcomes at workplace.

This paper is among the pioneers to address the mediating role of OFP in relations to workplace attitude and behaviour in non-western context.

This research paper aims to elucidate why and how a fair supervisor influences an employee's job satisfaction. While various theoretical approaches have been explored and numerous explanatory mechanisms investigated in prior organizational justice research, it is still unclear which explanatory mechanism is the dominant one to explain fairness effects. To address this gap, the author compares six distinct explanatory mechanisms of fairness effects on job satisfaction.

The author conducted a three-phase survey study with 309 employees from diverse organizations. The author measured all variables twice to control for stability effects and ensure stable findings. The author combined a path analysis with bootstrapping procedures using Mplus 8.3 software.

The influence of supervisor fairness on job satisfaction is primarily transmitted through an employee's negative emotions, a mechanism often examined in previous organizational justice research adopting the moral perspective of fairness.

Supervisors can increase employees' satisfaction with their jobs by treating them fairly and promoting a fair work environment. To increase the benefits of workplace fairness, supervisors can focus on the intervening mechanisms, such as emotions.

First, the author provides a fine-grained understanding of why supervisor fairness increases job satisfaction. Second, the author clarifies how the effects of supervisor fairness are transmitted. Third, the author identifies the most critical mediator to explain how supervisor fairness affects job satisfaction.