Search results

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.

Despite a global consensus that rule of law is desirable, there are important debates about what this entails and how it can be achieved or supported in developing and transitional countries of the Global South. Accordingly, this chapter considers the importance and contextual suitability of rule of law as a building block for ‘peaceful and inclusive societies’ in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). We begin by examining key definitional debates and consider the challenges inherent to monitoring progress towards SDG target 16.3 which seeks to ‘promote the rule of law at the national and international levels, and ensure equal access to justice for all’. We proceed to illustrate some of these definitional and methodological limitations by considering how favourable rankings of model Western democracies mask rule of law deficits that relate to access to justice and the protection of human rights for marginalised populations. This critique highlights an important point that is repeatedly emphasised throughout the rule of law literature: rule of law is not an end state but rather an ideal that all countries must continuously work to realise and sustain. The remainder of the chapter considers the challenges of promoting a Western rule of law agenda in a failed and titular democracy (the Solomon Islands) and a peaceful and prosperous country (Singapore) which adheres to a ‘thin’ definition of the rule of law that does not conform with liberal ideals.

This study aims to investigate the configurational effects of five rules – artificial intelligence (AI)-based hiring decision transparency, consistency, voice, explainability and human involvement – on applicants' procedural justice perception (APJP) and applicants' interactional justice perception (AIJP). In addition, this study examines whether the identified configurations could further enhance applicants' organisational commitment (OC).

Drawing on the justice model of applicants' reactions, the authors conducted a longitudinal survey of 254 newly recruited employees from 36 Chinese companies that utilise AI in their hiring. The authors employed fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to determine which configurations could improve APJP and AIJP, and the authors used propensity score matching (PSM) to analyse the effects of these configurations on OC.

The fsQCA generates three patterns involving five configurations that could improve APJP and AIJP. For pattern 1, when AI-based recruitment with high interpersonal rule (AI human involvement) aims for applicants' justice perception (AJP) through the combination of high informational rule (AI explainability) and high procedural rule (AI voice), there must be high levels of AI consistency and AI voice to complement AI explainability, and only this pattern of configurations can further enhance OC. In pattern 2, for the combination of high informational rule (AI explainability) and low procedural rule (absent AI voice), AI recruitment with high interpersonal rule (AI human involvement) should focus on AI transparency and AI explainability rather than the implementation of AI voice. In pattern 3, a mere combination of procedural rules could sufficiently improve AIJP.

This study, which involved real applicants, is one of the few empirical studies to explore the mechanisms behind the impact of AI hiring decisions on AJP and OC, and the findings may inform researchers and managers on how to best utilise AI to make hiring decisions.

The paper's purpose is to use religious thought to inform accounting, and in particular to make a contribution to the ongoing debates concerning the merits of rules‐ and principles‐based accounting systems and the value of a rule‐overriding requirement of fair presentation in financial reporting.

The paper applies to accounting a conception of religion that is heavily influenced by Jacques Derrida's writings on religion and deconstruction. In order to clarify the nature of this religion and to facilitate appreciation of its significance for accounting it is progressively recast, in the paper, first in terms of deconstruction and then in terms of a demand for an infinite justice.

At the core of the paper, religious responsibility, as a demand for justice, in accounting is explored through Derrida's analysis of the relation between justice and law, which is found to have clear application to accounting in terms of an aporetic tension between an infinite demand for fairness in accounting and accounting regulation.

The analysis implies that the pursuit of justice as fairness in accounting, “doing the truth” in accounting, will always demand the negotiation of an unstable and difficult mediation between the poles of regulation and fairness, the calculable and the incalculable, the possible and the impossible.

The paper draws on the postsecular current in religion to make a novel contribution to the critical and interdisciplinary awareness in accounting that has begun to unsettle the hold that certain modernist dichotomies, such as that of myth and reason, have had on accounting thought.

March 20, 1970 Trade Union — Expulsion — Rules of natural justice — Rules providing for exclusion of member for arrears of contribution — Power to exclude in branch committee — Member in arrears — Excluded by branch committee without his knowledge — No opportunity to meet charge — Participation at meeting by person not a committee member — Proceedings contrary to natural justice — Full hearing by appeals council in presence of member — Whether want of natural justice at branch committee cured.

Organizational justice research traditionally focuses on individuals’ reactions to how they are treated by others. However, little attention has been given to why individuals choose to behave fairly or unfairly in the first place. Our chapter draws on the literature in ethical decision making (Rest, 1986) to identify five distinct factors that influence an individual's decision to treat others fairly. Using this model as a foundation, and drawing on extant research in justice, we explore five different types of roadblocks to fair behavior. We explore the implications of these roadblocks for organizations concerned with creating and maintaining a fair workplace. Finally, we discuss future research suggested by the five factors and some dilemmas, issues, and caveats relevant to the proposed model.

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.

The question of how work motivation affects team members' tacit and explicit knowledge sharing has long puzzled organizational scholars. In this chapter, the quality of team–member exchange (TMX) is presented as one potential mechanism.

Key variables in the model are intrinsic and extrinsic work motivation, interactional and distributive organizational justice, tacit and explicit knowledge sharing, relationship-oriented and task-oriented TMX, organizational rules, organizational climate for trust. Separate models are developed for intrinsic versus tacit knowledge sharing.

While explicit knowledge sharing depends upon extrinsic factors such as extrinsic work motivation, task oriented TMX, distributive justice perceptions, and organizational rules, tacit knowledge sharing is dependent upon intrinsic factors such as intrinsic work motivation, relationship-oriented TMX, interactive justice perceptions, and perceptions of an organizational climate for trust.

This is the first model to provide a useful framework that should enable scholars to research the factors underlying the relationships between individual employee motivation and both explicit and tacit organizational knowledge sharing.

This chapter seeks to advance the neglected debate on the ethical issues between formal organization and practice arising from innovation in an organization. To that end, the chapter discusses the sources of possible moral dilemmas for practitioners who belong to a practice with a shared identity, values, and standards of excellence, and who need to conform to new rules of formal organization. While formal organization ideally strives for generalized fairness principles for all organizational members when introducing an innovation, the contextualized nature of practices may lead to particular needs and goals of the practice which can only be recognized as such by practitioners and not by formal management, and to which procedural justice cannot respond. The chapter proposes how practitioners may interpret moral dilemmas, aligned with their practice-based identity and ethical values, and what options for action they may seek. The discussion is illustrated with examples of innovation in the field of information systems design.