Search results

Theories in the justice area have proliferated with little regard either to their interconnections or to the general scientific criterion of parsimony. Recently, there have been several attempts to integrate justice theories. However, there has been practically no discussion of theoretical method, that is, precisely what it means to integrate two or more theories and what must be done to accomplish it. This chapter advocates building integrated theories by developing smaller modularized theories that can be formulated and assembled for multiple purposes. To illustrate the process, we construct five modules addressing different areas connected to justice issues and show how they may be combined into a single integrated structure.

Organizational justice research has become the main paradigm of research in the field of HRM. The purpose of this paper is to outline a number of underlying challenges to which this paradigm is ill-suited. It broadens the traditional understanding of what is meant by fairness within the HRM literature to help explain how justice judgements are formed and may be used to influence societal-level fairness processes. It develops a framework to aid the understanding of the fairness of decisions that individuals or organizations make.

The paper presents a conceptual review of the main paradigms used in fairness research. It draws upon the organizational justice literature as the dominant paradigm in HRM research, and conducts a cross-disciplinary review that introduces a range of theories less frequently used by HRM researchers – specifically capability theory, game theory, tournament theory, equity sensitivity theory, theories of intergenerational equity, and burden sharing. It demonstrates the relevance of these theories to a number of areas of organizational effectiveness.

The paper shows that researchers are now augmenting the organizational justice research paradigm under two important pressures – awareness of hidden structures that preclude the option for real fairness; and new variables that are being added to the consideration of organizational justice.

HR functions have invested significant resources in employee engagement or insight units, but if their policies trigger significant inequality of outcomes, perceived problems of justice, a lack of burden sharing, no sense proportionality, organizations may not be able to achieve other important HR strategies such as sustaining and deepening employee engagement, developing organizational advocacy, building an employer brand, or being seen to have authenticity in its values. The framework suggests a broadened educational base for HR practitioners around fairness. It also suggests that there may be complex employees segments concerning perceptions of fairness.

The cross-disciplinary perspective taken on fairness helps deconstruct the judgements that employees likely make, enabling organizations and individuals alike to ask more critical questions about their respective behaviour.

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.

This study aims to investigate the moderating role of low and high failure severity levels on recovery satisfaction and on behavioral intentions through recovery satisfaction. This research adopted justice theory and regulatory focus theory to provide further explanations on the inconsistencies in the extant literature regarding service failure and responses to service recovery.

This study applied a scenario-based experimental design of two (perceived justice: low vs high) by two (failure severity: low vs high) between-subjects factorial design. Data was collected from 237 mobile phone users recruited via convenience sampling. This study examined the hypothesized relations using Hayes (2018) PROCESS macro version 4.0.

Perceived justice had a higher positive effect on recovery satisfaction at a high failure severity level. The direct effect of perceived justice on behavioral intentions was significant and positive only at a high level of failure severity, whereas the indirect effect of perceived justice on consumers’ positive behavior through recovery satisfaction was more positive at a high level of failure severity.

Justice theory and regulatory focus theory can be used to explain how a well-implemented recovery effort can offset losses that are caused by a highly severe service failure leading to satisfaction and positive responses. However, as this study was conducted within a telecommunication service context, this research needs to be replicated in other areas, including the use of other data collection methods and measurement of consumers’ regulatory focus orientation.

The findings of this study provide managers with valuable insights into the allocation of service providers’ resources for recovery actions according to consumers’ perceived severity levels to regain consumer satisfaction and continued positive behavioral intentions.

Past research on the effect of failure severity levels on recovery satisfaction and consumers’ positive behavioral intentions is scant, and those studies that examined severity levels have shown conflicting results. This study attempted to advance the research by examining the relationship between perceived justice, recovery satisfaction and behavioral intentions at low and high failure severity levels using justice theory and regulatory focus theory. None of the theories have been examined concurrently in the service failure and recovery framework.

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.

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.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused significant disruption to the global labor market, resulting in a rapid transition toward remote work, e-commerce and workforce automation. This shift has sparked a considerable amount of public discussion. This study aims to explore the online public's sentiment toward remote work amid the pandemic.

Based on justice theory, this paper examines user-generated content on social media platforms, particularly Twitter, to gain insight into public opinion and discourse surrounding remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Employing content analysis techniques such as sentiment analysis, text clustering and evolutionary analysis, this study aims to identify prevalent topics, temporal patterns and instances of sentiment polarization in tweets.

Results show that people with positive opinions focus mainly on personal interests, while others focus on the interests of the company and society; people's subjectivities are higher when they express extremely negative or extremely positive emotions. Distributive justice and interactional justice are distinguishable with a high degree of differentiation in the cluster map.

Previous research has inadequately addressed public apprehensions about remote work during emergencies, particularly from a justice-based perspective. This study seeks to fill this gap by examining how justice theory can shed light on the public's views regarding corporate policy-making during emergencies. The results of this study provide valuable insights and guidance for managing public opinion during such events.

Dashang refers to a reward given voluntarily to street performers in return for their performance. Some social media platforms have created a way to integrate this as a function, referred to as the dashang feature, to allow users to reward live performers online as well. Over the last few years, this function has become extremely popular among social media users, as it recreates the nostalgic experience of watching street performances. Platforms now consider it indispensable, as it has become a source of substantial revenue (commission on rewards earned by performers). However, not all users reward performers. For each user who pays, there are many more who lurk on the platform. This study examines the reasons for these differences using the Big Five personality perspective and justice theory.

We develop an empirical model using the Big Five theory and justice theory and test it using empirical data collected through a survey of WeChat users.

The results indicate that distributive justice, interpersonal justice and informational justice are essential factors in relation to social media users' use of the dashang feature. It is also found that personality type affects these three factors.

This study makes three key contributions. First, it examines the factors that influence users' voluntary use of the dashang feature using the lenses of the Big Five theory and justice theory. Second, this study extends previous results on perceived justice to examine use of the dashang feature in social media. Third, this study applies these theories to the study of consumer behavior by exploring the role of user characteristics in social media use.

In this paper, the philosophy of John Rawls, known as “Justice as Fairness,” is discussed. This philosophy examines the responsibilities social actors hold toward their societal organizations. From an Islamic perspective, justice is pivotal in safeguarding collective interests, aligning with Rawls' conviction that just societies nurture happiness and foster well-being across various life aspects. To achieve customer welfare, our viewpoint underscores the importance of justice in reflecting on consumer well-being from both Rawls’ theory and Islamic perspectives.

We adopt a conceptual approach where secular views of Rawls’ “Theory of Justice” are merged with the Islamic view, resulting in novel insights regarding the hermeneutics involved in the notion of justice and the preservation of consumer well-being.

Our analysis reveals that John Rawls' “A Theory of Justice” aligns with the Islamic perspective in several respects yet diverges in others, notably in the concepts of pre-creation consciousness and divine guidance. These distinctions are emphasized in our paper.

Our paper presents a perspective on justice founded on the concepts of the “Original Position” and the “Veil of Ignorance.” The commentary explores consumer well-being by integrating Rawls' principles with an analysis that elucidates the role justice plays in enhancing societal welfare.