Search results

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 examines the contribution of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice in Federal budget decision-making to Federal managers' commitment to the Federal government as an employing organization. A total of 1,358 useable surveys were received from a sample of 9,643 managers. Reliability coefficients were acceptable (> .70), and intercorrelations consistent with previous studies. Hierarchical regression analysis supported only maineffect relationships between procedural justice and interactional justice and managers' organizational commitment. No support was found for a main effect relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment -- or for any interactive effects. Contrary to models of bureaucratic behavior based on economic theory, these findings may suggest that Federal managers may be motivated primarily by psychological outcomes of budget decisions.

This review article focuses on the factors that affect the selection and implementation of three principles of distributive justice (i.e., equity, equality, and need) to reward systems in group and organizational settings. After presenting an overview of the assumptions, goals, and possible consequences associated with each of the three perspectives, the article then describes the moderating factors influencing distribution rule preferences across four levels of analysis: (1) the interorganizational, (2) the intraorganizational, (3) the work group, and (4) the individual. Some of the variables discussed include cross‐cultural differences, reward system implementation, task interdependency, work group climate, and individual characteristics. This material is then summarized through the use of a new conceptual model for describing allocation rule preferences. The article concludes with suggestions for future research.

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.

This study evaluates the integrative role of justice theory, religiosity, satisfaction and trust in influencing customer loyalty to Islamic mobile banking.

This study surveyed 370 customers who used Islamic mobile banking. The authors employed SEM-PLS to estimate the proposed model and answer the hypotheses.

Empirical facts show that distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice can increase loyalty through the role of satisfaction. On the other hand, distributive justice, procedural justice and religiosity can predict loyalty through the role of trust.

This study encourages Islamic mobile banking providers to improve the quality of benefit distribution, the application of procedures and interaction among all levels of users. In addition, religious education innovation is also important to increase customer activity in using Islamic mobile banking.

Until now, none of the studies have estimated the loyalty of Islamic mobile banking users based on the integrative roles of justice theory, religiosity, satisfaction and trust. It, therefore, highlights the originality of this study.

Henry George was acclaimed by the general public and disdained by the professional economists, largely for the same reasons. For the general public, progress, and poverty seemed to go to the heart of the matter, treating economics as a question of justice. But for the professionals, George was often regarded as a dangerous radical, even though he reasoned within the tradition of Smith, Ricardo, and Mill. However, he conducted his studies at the precise moment of the marginalist revolution, just as the profession was undergoing a transition from political economy to economics. For the former, economic science was embedded in particular political and cultural systems, while the latter aspired to be a pure science with its own mathematics. While some of the marginalists, such as Walras and Marshall, could maintain a commitment to justice, many others found the whole question superfluous. The purpose of this paper is to argue, however, that without some notion of justice, and especially justice in property relations, a complete description of an economy is impossible.

The paper examines three issues: the relation between distributive and corrective justice, the relation between normative and positive science, and the relation between equity and equilibrium.

The paper finds that, without some notion of equity, equilibrium is unattainable. And this relation can be shown to be present in the very starting conditions of neoclassical formulations, which initial conditions are, alas, too often forgotten.

The paper provides an intriguing view of the neoclassicists' different stance in regard to justice, pointing out that William Stanley Jevons, for example, explicitly states that “feelings” of justice are “more or less extraneous to a theory of economics,” and expands upon this argument.

This study examines how the structure of referent networks, or the social network defined by knowing others’ reward levels, affects perceptions of distributive justice. The homogeneity of rewards in the referent network, the amount of inequality in the referent network, and an individual’s reward level are all associated with distributive justice perceptions. Several moderating relationships are also examined.

We relied on data from a controlled laboratory experiment to test a series of theoretically derived hypotheses.

The study shows that several aspects about the structure of the referent network are important for shaping perceptions of distributive justice. Specifically, the reward heterogeneity and amount of inequality in the network are found to be negatively associated with distributive justice, while reward levels are found to be positively associated with distributive justice. Furthermore, the effect of reward levels on distributive justice is moderated by both (i) the presence of a referential standard for rewards and (ii) the amount of inequality in the network.

While being among the first studies to demonstrate effects of referent networks on perceptions of fairness, it is unclear how group memberships combine with referent network effects and which factors may blur these relationships in uncontrolled environments. Subsequent scholarship on the effect of referent networks on justice perceptions should leverage multiple data sources.

Research on the effects of referents on justice perceptions has focused on particular referent individuals. We recast this issue in terms of referent networks, which highlights the empirical reality that individuals have a variety of sources or alters which could operate as referents.

This chapter examines how public attitudes and judgments about tax fairness reflect distributive justice rules about proportionality/contributions, needs, and equality; fairness issues that influence voluntary tax compliance (Hofmann, Hoelzl, & Kirchler, 2008; Spicer & Lundstedt, 1976). Most public polls and some prior research indicate the general public considers progressive income tax rates as fairer than flat tax rates, a reflection of the Needs rule of distributive justice theory; our 1,138 participants respond similarly. However, two-thirds of our politically representative sample of the American public actually assign “fair shares” of income taxes consistently with fairness-as-proportionality above an exempt amount of income, consistent with the Contributions rule of Equity Theory. We argue experimental assignments of fair shares of income taxes can best be understood as a combination of the Needs rule, applied by exempting incomes below the poverty line from income taxation (via current standard deductions) and taxing incomes above this exempt amount at a single tax rate (i.e., a flat-rate tax) consistent with the Proportionality/Contributions rule. Viewed in combination, these two distributive justice rules explain the tax fairness judgments of 89% of our sample and indicate surprising general agreement about what constitutes a fair share of income taxes that should be paid by US citizens from the 5th percentile to the 95th percentile of the income distribution. The joint application of these fairness rules indicates how seemingly competing, partisan distributive justice concerns can inform our understanding of social attitudes about tax fairness across income classes.

This study has three objectives: to examine the impact of organizational justice on work outcomes in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to test the mediating impact of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on the justice‐turnover intention relationship, and to test distributive justice as a mediator of the relationship between procedural justice and work outcomes.

Data were collected from 350 employees working in five large organizations operating in Dubai. A structured questionnaire containing standard scales of distributive and procedural justice, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and some demographic variables was used. After testing the scales' reliability and validity, the proposed linear relationships were tested using a series of separate hierarchical regression analyses. Proposed mediation hypotheses were tested using Baron and Kenny's recommendations.

Consistent with Western studies, the study revealed that procedural justice was more strongly related to organizational commitment than distributive justice. Contrary to Western literature, the study showed that procedural justice was more strongly related to job satisfaction than distributive justice. Moreover, job satisfaction was found to play a partial role in mediating the influence of organizational justice on organizational commitment and turnover intention. Also, organizational commitment was found to fully mediate the relationship between procedural justice and turnover intention. However, it partially mediated the relationship between distributive justice and turnover intentions. Finally, distributive justice was found to mediate some of the relationships between procedural justice and work outcomes.

The study has implications for enhancing work outcomes. In general, enhancing organizational justice can result in a higher level of employee outcomes. Also, managers should improve staff job satisfaction and organizational commitment in order to enhance the impact of both distributive and procedural justice on reducing turnover intention. In addition, UAE managers should provide sufficient distributive justice in order to improve the impact of procedural justice on the work outcomes of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention.

The study is considered the first to examine the mediating role of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in the relationship between organizational justice and turnover intention in the Middle East. Also, the study is the first to test the role of distributive justice as a mediator for the procedural justice‐work outcomes relationship in a non‐Western context.

This chapter covers basic concepts, ethical theories, and moral paradigms of corporate ethics for identifying, understanding, and responding to the turbulent market challenges of today. The concept, nature, and domain of ethics, business ethics, managerial ethics, and corporate executive ethics are defined and differentiated for their significance. The domain, scope, and nature of related concepts such as legality, ethicality, morality, and executive spirituality are distinguished and developed. Among normative and descriptive ethical theories that we briefly review and critique here are teleology or utilitarianism, deontology or existentialism, distributive justice, corrective justice, and ethics of malfeasance and beneficence. Other moral theories of ethics such as ethics of human dignity, ethics of cardinal virtues, ethics of trusting relations, ethics of stakeholder rights and duties, ethics of moral reasoning and judgment calls, ethics of executive and moral leadership, and ethics of social and moral responsibility will be treated in a later book. The thrust of this book is positive: despite our not very commendable track record in managing this planet and its resources, our basic questions are: Where are we now? What are we now? Where should we as corporations go, and why? What are the specific positive mandates and metrics to corporate executives to reach that desired destiny? This chapter explores responses to these strategic corporate questions.