Search results

Based on gender role theory, this study aims to test a moderated mediation model in which gender, mediated by shame, affected salary negotiation initiation and writing pay raise justifications before the negotiation moderated gender effects, by boosting women’s negotiation initiation and lowering their shame.

Mixed-methods approach: in a scenario experiment, participants (N = 172; 92 women) imagined initiating salary negotiations with real employers, and shame and the inclination to actually initiate the negotiation were measured. About half the sample wrote pay raise justifications as part of the task. In the qualitative phase of the study, justifications were analyzed.

The model’s predictions were not supported. Women were neither less inclined to negotiate nor reported higher shame than men. Across gender, shame related to lower negotiation initiation and was alleviated by justifications’ preparation. Writing justifications did not affect men’s negotiation initiation, but lowered women’s. The qualitative analysis revealed that while all participants preferred communal themes in their justifications, women used themes of confidence, entitlement and power less than men.

The study provides original evidence in negotiation literature, on the effects of shame, on the practice of preparing pay raise justifications and on specific patterns in justifications’ content.

This paper details an experimental study (n=197) that explores how different types of managerial change justifications affect employees’ reactions. The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of managerial justification of a controversial decision in referential terms, ideological terms or a combination of the two.

A randomized controlled experiment was used applying case-based video clips to ensure vividness and realism in the experimental manipulation.

The results show that referential justification caused a drop in the perceived trustworthiness of management, such that it reduced employees’ perceptions of the manager’s integrity. The effect was most pronounced in participants having elevated levels of dispositional resistance to change. The drop in perceived integrity was indirectly associated with reduced intention to support the change together with adverse affective and cognitive reactions to change.

A robust test of different change justifications in a randomized, controlled setting, which also highlights the psychological mechanisms through which referential change justifications reduce follower trust. This result should help managers more readily understand the components of successful communication in organizational change.

The status quo for managing deviant workplace behavior is underperforming. The current research offers a new approach for scholars and managers in approaching these misbehaviors. Namely, we outline how system justification theory, which holds that people are motivated to rationalize and justify the systems—including workplaces—to which they belong even when those systems disadvantage them or others, offers value in explaining and addressing the prevalence of such misbehaviors and contemporary failures in managing them.

This conceptual research explores the situated role of onlookers to patterns of workplace misbehavior, like harassment. We explore existing scholarship on why and how onlookers respond to such actions, including cultural elements, and draw parallels between those accounts and the foundational concepts of system justification theory to demonstrate an unrealized theoretical overlap valuable for its immediate applications in research.

The current paper establishes clear links between system justification theory and efforts to manage misbehavior, establishing system justifications as freezing forces in the culture of a workplace that must be unfrozen to successfully implement strategies for managing misbehavior. Further, we describe how organizational onlookers to misbehavior are subject to system justifications, which limit prescribed means of stopping these patterns of wrongdoing.

Very limited organizational scholarship has utilized system justification theory, despite calls for such applications. Given the existing shortcomings in scholarship and management approaches to workplace misbehavior, the current research breaks from the status quo and offers an established theory as a new way to approach these misbehaviors.

The purpose of this paper is to show how various organizational justifications for hiring decisions influence the beneficiary's perceptions of fairness. Specifically, the paper investigates the relative impacts of no justification, affirmative action justification and justifications based on attempts to improve organizational creativity.

Participants were asked to read several vignettes in which the justification for the hiring decisions was manipulated. Fairness perceptions were then assessed for each scenario. Paired‐sample t tests were used to test hypotheses.

The paper finds that perceptions of both procedural and distributive justice appeared to follow a common theme across Hispanic and African American subgroups where the hiring decision was perceived to be fairer when no justification was provided. Hiring decisions based on affirmative action and diversity programs designed to promote creativity were perceived as less fair by both African Americans and Hispanics.

The study used a sample of minority students, thereby limiting the generalizability of these findings.

The current study has practical implications in that it may help both academicians and practitioners better understand what applicants perceive regarding the fairness of affirmative action and diversity programs.

Past research has investigated the preferential selection of women and minorities, however, there has been little systematic inquiry into the possible justifications that might reduce the negative reactions of beneficiaries.

The widespread use of electronic mail (e‐mail) at work has prompted a growing number of companies to implement e‐mail policies to protect both business interests and the privacy of employees. However, very little is known about the effects of such policies on such outcomes for employees such as perceived invasiveness and fairness. Thus, the paper aims to consider these issues.

This paper uses a 2×2 experimental design and a sample of 592 employed internet users to examine the effects of e‐mail policy characteristics (i.e. policy restrictiveness and policy justification) on perceptions of invasion of privacy (invasiveness) and fairness.

Results indicate that policy restrictiveness has effects on both invasiveness and fairness, and that policy justification has an effect on fairness. In addition, privacy values are related to both invasiveness and fairness, and moderated the effect of policy restrictiveness on fairness.

Implications for practice and the integration of organizational justice and organizational privacy theory are discussed. In terms of practice, for example, the study's results have implications for the formulation and enforcement of policies concerning the use of e‐mail systems.

This paper is the first to consider the effects of e‐mail policies on employee reactions (i.e. fairness and invasiveness).

The purpose of this paper is to provide an analytical review of the key jurisprudence of the European Court and to present the argument that a more conservative approach is being adopted when considering the objective justification defence in dismissals by reason of retirement.

A review approach is adopted in the paper, with a primary focus on recent European Court decisions, whilst appreciating existing literature on the position of retirement cases. Attempts were made to draw together the evidence which suggests a shift in approach to objective justification in this context.

The paper reveals that the approach being adopted in retirement cases appears to be devaluing the age discrimination protections, through allowing individual, subjective reasons to justify less favourable treatment, despite the express wording of the Parent Directive precluding such an approach. It is highlighted that this could have damaging practical implications by placing a much lighter burden on employers when arguing objective justification of retirement dismissals.

The paper's main limitation is that it only considers case law from the European Court, without considering the approach adopted in any of the EU member states, where the eventual approach will be decided. However, this paper provides useful analysis of the approach being adopted in the European Court which is the ultimate interpreter of EU law, whilst questioning whether it is the correct approach.

The paper is the first to examine the shifting approach to objective justification in retirement cases.

In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the influence of competitive compensation systems on employee risk taking has gained increasing attention. As the renouncement of such incentive schemes might entail severe disadvantages regarding employee motivation, standard setters have proposed adding nonmonetary instruments of control. This paper aims to examine the influence of two of the most common instruments: a risk-sensitizing code of conduct and justification.

A laboratory experiment with 136 business students is conducted to test the hypotheses and answer the research question. The presence and absence of a risk-sensitizing code of conduct and a justification system is manipulated between subjects. The experiment consists of ten rounds, with round as the third factor manipulated within subjects.

Consistent with the paper’s hypothesis and the underlying theory, both instruments are found to offset higher risk taking. The paper shows that the motivation of individuals triggered by justification depends on a risk-sensitizing code of conduct, and insights into the psychological mechanisms behind the findings are provided.

As justification is considered more costly than a risk-sensitizing code of conduct, establishing the latter instead of the former seems preferable in most situations. However, if organizational citizenship behavior is unlikely to evolve, justification can substitute it for managing employee risk taking.

This paper identifies the risk-sensitizing code of conduct as an informal instrument of control for managing risk taking. Prior research mainly focuses on potentially more costly formal instruments of control.

This paper seeks to present the results of an investigation on the justification of investments in advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) at manufacturing plants in the USA. Unlike previous research that explored the adoption and use of a specific AMT or groups of similar AMT, this study focuses on a plant's combination of technologies or its technology portfolio.

Mail survey responses from a sample of 82 plants are used to examine the relationships between the type of technology portfolio being used and the justification approaches and evaluation techniques that were utilized to justify these investments. The study also investigates the level of functional integration and the level of effort applied to several activities during the justification stage of the AMT projects.

The majority of plants that had adopted the more complex technology portfolios were using hybrid (economic and strategic) justification approaches supported by ratio and discounted cash flow justification techniques. Plants that were using the less complex portfolio also used hybrid approaches, but tended to concentrate on the use of ratio techniques. Findings on the level of functional integration at various stages of the AMT project are also reported.

This research concentrated on discrete‐parts durable goods producers in the USA. Further studies are needed to determine whether the findings can be generalized across other industries or in other countries.

This research uses an innovative portfolio analysis approach to investigate the important topic of justification of AMT. Managerial implications arising from the results of this study and a number of new research avenues are advanced.

Sustainable consumption is an important topic for different industries, including the fashion industry. Despite a favourable attitude of consumers towards sustainable products in the fashion industry, the actual purchase by the consumers is limited. Thus, the present study examines sustainable consumption using the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). The purpose of this paper is to study the mediating impact of strategies of justification of unethical behaviour on the gap-based relationship between a purchase intention and a purchase decision for a consumer in a sustainable clothing context.

For the study, the primary data from 229 graduate-level fashion students enrolled in universities across India has been analyzed with the help of structural equation modelling.

The study results have proven that attitudes and subjective norms can positively affect purchase intentions when it comes to purchase of the environmentally sustainable products. Further, economic rationality (ER) and government dependency (GD) partially mediate the purchase intention–behaviour gap of the justification strategies for unethical behaviour.

The results would be helpful in implementing sustainable clothing consumption among Indian consumers. The study would be beneficial for industry professionals, export houses and scholars to discover possible reasons which can lead to the widening of the intention–behaviour gap when it comes to the purchase of the sustainable clothing consumption for Indian consumers. Critical implications for marketers from the present research assert that ER and GD are important factors that could increase the purchase intention of young consumers towards sustainable clothing.

The results of the study contribute to the existing literature in a novel way by adding justification strategies for unethical behaviour to the TPB model. This study is innovative as it adds new constructs to the TPB model by including the three justification strategies that people use for unethical consumption behaviour (ER, economic development and GD) to gain insight into why a purchase intention–behaviour gap exists for sustainable clothing.

The purpose of this paper is to test the explanatory effects of the system justification theory on reactions to new employee hazing.

Three studies (N = 107, 121 and 128), all using experimental assignment, vignettes of workplace hazing and two-level repeated measures ANCOVA designs, with dispositional variables included as covariates and justification of workplace hazing processes as dependent variables, were conducted.

Onlookers are more likely to justify long-standing (cf. recently adopted) hazing systems and hazing systems used by highly cohesive (cf. loosely cohesive) teams, supporting the application of the system justification theory to workplace hazing reactions.

The use of vignette research and onlookers (cf. hazed employees) may limit inferences drawn about employee reactions in workplaces that use hazing.

Despite its negative associations, hazing at work persists, with 25 percent of current sample reported being hazed at work. The system justification theory, which the authors applied to hazing, offers an explanation for stakeholders’ willingness to sustain and perpetuate hazing, and onlookers’ seeming blind-spot regarding outrage over workplace hazing. This theory holds promise for combatting passive responses to workplace hazing.

This is the first paper to empirically test explanations for workplace hazing’s perpetuation, by applying the system justification theory to the social system of workplace hazing. Moreover, it is the first paper to offer empirical evidence of hazing’s prevalence across at least 25 percent of sampled industries and organizational rank.