Search results

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.

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.

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 examined, in an organizational budgeting context, several important psychological processes surrounding procedural justice. Specifically, the study tested a causal model in which voice has value‐expressive and control‐mediated effects on procedural justice, and procedural justice has positive effects on organizational commitment. Data were gathered with a survey of production workers (N = 157) and analyzed with a latent variable structural equation model. The results supported control‐mediated voice effects on procedural justice and procedural justice effects on organizational commitment, but failed to confirm value‐expressive voice effects. Based on the findings, we argue that value‐expressive voice effects may be less prevalent than previous research has suggested.

Processes of legitimacy and justice pervade work organizations. Here we focus on how legitimacy (collective sources of support for an authority) and procedural justice (use of fair procedures) affect how individuals interpret and respond to situations involving unfair outcomes such as underpayment. We draw upon the legitimacy perspective of Walker and Zelditch and the procedural justice approach of Tyler to develop two new models, one in which the two factors constitute objective and independent contextual elements and one in which perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice are reciprocal. Both models have implications for understanding fairness and compliance in organizations.

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.

The present study examined the role of voice in facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration. According to the group-value model of procedural justice, voice relates to interpersonal relationships among coworkers because it facilitates a greater interest in helping the group (e.g. group-serving behavior). We argue that because of the relationship between voice and one type of group-serving behavior--advice sharing--that greater perceptions of voice would also predict more collaboration. In a field study examining collaborative social networks among university researchers, we found that greater perceptions of voice positively related to both degree of advice sharing and collaboration. Moreover, the extent to which individuals shared advice fully mediated the relationship between perceived voice and collaboration. Implications for voice and collaboration are discussed.

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.

When a natural disaster occurs, the media directs the public’s attention to the key elements of disaster management and provides accounts of how effective the government is in responding to it. This study analyzed 80 reports contained in 21 stories published in three international newspapers and 35 editorial statements from 21 editorials obtained from two national papers regarding the Japanese government’s responses to the great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake. Issue clusters for different levels of government responding to the crisis were identified. The lack of systematic reactions to the crisis provoked the most media scrutiny. The legitimacy of the government’s behaviors in this area were perceived more negatively by the media than were the inappropriate behavior of elected officials or the lack of care expressed towards the victims by local officials.