Search results

Our purpose is to examine whether and how perceived organizational support (POS) mediates the effects of informational and interpersonal justice on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB).

Data were randomly collected from 159 matched supervisor‐subordinate dyads of three engineering firms in Hong Kong in different sites and period of time.

Results of structural equation modeling indicated that POS fully mediated the effects of interpersonal and informational justice on citizenship behaviors that are directed at the organization (OCBO) and its members (OCBI).

Cross‐sectional research design limits the reveal of causality in variables. The findings theoretically integrate justice with POS literature by distinguishing the unique effects of interpersonal and informational justice on OCBO and OCBI through the mediating role of POS.

The success of leaders lie in whether they are trained to comply with the informational and interpersonal rules as well as show respect and provide candid information to the employees on a daily encounter. Also, the leaders may help cultivating subordinates’ a favorable perception of POS by passing on clear messages to subordinates that organization cares about and accounted to them.

The use of POS as a mediator on distinguishing interpersonal and informational justice on OCB is unprecedented. Most justice research has been focussed on distributive and procedural justice or situational factors that moderate the justice‐OCB link. But, this study has strength of clarifying the links among interpersonal and informational justice, POS, and OCB on professional employees in a non‐North‐America context.

In the competitive retailing environment, retailers who provide service experiences that stand out from the competition can gain a competitive advantage. Increasingly, an important aspect of the service experience involves product returns, in particular, the fairness of returns policies and procedures. Previous research studies support that interpersonal justice and informational justice relate positively to consumer attitudes and behaviors. In this paper, the authors examine the relative effects of interpersonal justice and informational justice on return satisfaction, positive word-of-mouth (PWOM) and trust. Additionally, the authors examine the moderating effects of returns process convenience and returns policy restrictiveness as indicators of procedural justice.

A scenario-based experiment methodology was used to test the relationships of interest.

Results support that the effects of interpersonal justice on the outcome variables are stronger than the effects of informational justice. There is also support for a moderating effect of returns process convenience on the relationships between interpersonal justice and each outcome variable, as well as partial support for the moderating effect of returns policy restrictiveness on the relationship between interpersonal justice and PWOM.

The research extends previous work on the effects of justice on customer outcomes. Results support the importance of retailers treating customers with fairness during the returns experience and further support the benefits of providing a convenient returns experience.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justices on switching intentions.

Data were gathered on distributive, procedural, interpersonal, informational justices and switching intentions by means of a survey from prepaid mobile subscribers in Malaysia.

The results show that the effects of procedural justices on switching intentions were stronger than distributive and informational justices. However, the results did not indicate a significant relationship between interpersonal justice and switching intentions.

The paper examines only one service context; consequently, the results cannot be generalized for other services in the industry.

The results of this study are useful for Malaysian marketing practitioners in the overly saturated and highly competitive mobile telecommunication industry.

Unlike previous studies, the paper incorporates a fourth dimension of justice – informational justice – into the service recovery literature. Although prior studies have investigated the relationship between perceived justice and positive behavioral intentions, there is no specific study currently investigating the relationship between perceived justices and negative outcomes.

We suggest that, in some specific settings, individuals may distinguish and be sensitive not only to the distributive, procedural, social, and informational dimensions of justice, but also subdivide the distributive justice dimension into two facets‐reward and task distributive justice. Results of three studies with Portuguese public university teachers reveal that a five‐factor model of justice (distribution of tasks, distribution of rewards, procedural, interpersonal, informational) is adequate, although factor analyses are not categorical in distinguishing interpersonal and informational justice. Results also show that individuals who work with high autonomy and outside close supervisory control in performing their jobs may be very sensitive to the way they feel treated by their superiors, even accepting as normal that the superiors make decisions with no participation, a finding that may be due to the feminine, affiliative, and high power distance cultural context.

Technology has dramatically changed the nature of interorganizational relationships and the ways partners interact with each other. In the new platform business model, platform technology usage seems to work as a governance mechanism to regulate operations and manage platform builder–platform participant relationships. To respond to these changes, this study aims to examine how platform technology usage in platform operations influenced the relationship quality between the platform builder and platform participants by promoting perceptions of three types of justice (procedural, distributive and informational).

The authors propose that it is through the perception of three types of justice (procedural, distributive and informational) that platform technology usage exerts its governance effect on the platform relationship. In doing this, the authors seek to answer the following two related research questions in the platform setting: How does platform technology usage drive relationship performance via different types of justice perceptions? Which type of justice affects relationship performance most effectively?

The results from a survey of 384 participant firms from two of the largest digital platforms for mobile/PC application in China reveal that platform technology usage leads to better relationship performance through enhanced perceptions of procedural, distributive, and informational justice. The positive impacts of procedural justice and distributive justice on relationship performance are greater than that of informational justice, while the impacts of procedural justice and distributive justice show no significant differences.

These findings provide novel insights into the role and mechanisms of platform technology usage in platform relationship management.

Using the theoretical lens of appraisal theory, this research aims to investigate the interrelationship between employees' organizational justice perceptions and counterproductive work behaviours (CWBs) through the mediation of negative emotions.

To this end, a sample comprised of 207 banking sector employees of Pakistan was utilized to test hypothesized relationships. The collected data were analyzed through the partial least structural equation modelling technique.

Results show that counterwork behaviours are influenced by distributive and procedural justice perceptions. The mediating effects of negative emotions were also statistically significant between procedural, interpersonal and informational justice perceptions and counterwork behaviours. No gender differences were found between distributive, interpersonal and informational justice perceptions and counterwork behaviours. However, the authors found that procedural justice perceptions of female employees are strongly related to CWBs as compared to male employees.

This research contributes to the existing organizational behaviour literature by empirically testing the hypothesized relationships using the theoretical lens of appraisal theory with advanced quantitative data analysis techniques.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the underlying structure of employees' justice perceptions in the context of their organizations' performance appraisal practices.

Ten multi‐item scales were designed to measure the perceived fairness of performance appraisal practices. A nested confirmatory factor analysis of employee responses (n=188) compared the four justice dimensions (i.e. procedural, distributive, interpersonal, informational) to five plausible alternatives. Construct validity was demonstrated through a structural equation model of matched employee and supervisor responses (n=117).

The confirmatory factor analysis showed evidence of four distinct but highly correlated justice constructs. Results supported hypothesized relationships between procedural justice and helpful behaviors toward the organization via appraisal system satisfaction; distributive justice with appraisal satisfaction; and interpersonal and informational justice and helpful behaviors toward the supervisor via supervisor satisfaction.

This study underscores the importance of fostering perceptions of justice in the context of performance appraisal. The scales developed in this study could be used to isolate potential problems with an organization's performance appraisal practices. Originality/value – The paper integrates prior research concerning the positive effects of procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice on affective and behavioral responses towards performance appraisals.

The purpose of this paper is to integrate two streams of research and investigate the associations of different forms of justice perceptions on attitudinal reactions to four components of compensation: pay level, pay raises, benefits, and structure and administration In doing so, it responds to calls for more primary studies linking interactional justice perceptions to pay satisfaction.

In total, 151 technology professionals employed at an international consulting company were surveyed to investigate hypotheses. Structural equation modeling was used to test the model.

As hypothesized, distributive justice was related to satisfaction with pay level, procedural justice to satisfaction with benefits, raises and pay structure and administration, and informational justice to pay level and structure and administration.

The primary limitations of this research are the cross‐sectional research design and a single source of survey data.

Since pay dissatisfaction is significantly related to numerous employee outcomes and attitudes toward pay meditate the relationship between compensation and work outcomes, understanding the role of perceived justice may facilitate managers' ability to influence pay satisfaction. HR policies and managers' behaviors can influence pay satisfaction as much or more than actual pay (distributive justice). For example, results for informational justice suggest pay satisfaction can be increased by clearly and candidly explaining and communicating the organization's procedures and processes.

This paper is the first to examine associations between the four‐factor justice model and components of pay satisfaction and demonstrate that informational justice adds additional explained variance for pay level, raises, and structure and administration.

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.