Search results

The main purpose of this essay is to reflect on the nature of justification. To this end, the analysis draws on Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur ¹ [On Justification: Economies of Worth ² ]. More specifically, the article aims to examine the extent to which Boltanski and Thévenot’s conceptual framework, widely known as ‘the sociology of critical capacity’, ³ permits us to demonstrate that processes of justification ⁴ are vital to the symbolically mediated construction – that is, to both the conceptual and the empirical organization ⁵ – of social life. In order to prove the validity of this contention, the inquiry explores the meaning of ‘justification’ in relation to the following dimensions: (1) existence, (2) ethics, (3) justice, (4) perspective, (5) presuppositions, (6) agreement, (7) common worlds, (8) critique, (9) practice and (10) justification itself. By way of conclusion, the article maintains that processes of justification constitute an essential ingredient of human reality.

In addition to serving a hegemonic function, system-justifying ideologies serve the palliative function of enabling people to feel better about inequality. We summarize three studies supporting this proposition. In the first study, an arbitrary hierarchy was created using the “Star Power” simulation. Results reveal that system justification is associated with increased positive affect, satisfaction, and decreased negative affect, guilt, and frustration. Two additional studies demonstrate that the dampening effect of system justification on support for the redistribution of resources is mediated by reduced moral outrage but not guilt or negative affect. Implications for social change and social justice are discussed.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of attribute frames and justifications on capital budgeting decisions and to examine whether the requirement to provide justification for a capital budgeting decision moderates the effect of attribute frames.

One-hundred and eleven participants made a capital budgeting decision in an experimental case that manipulated the frame of the financial evidence provided and the requirement to provide a justification.

Results suggest that both attribute frames and justifications affect capital budgeting decisions but the requirement to provide justifications did not moderate the effect of attribute frames.

This study contributes to the capital budgeting literature by identifying two factors that may bias judgments. This study also contributes to the framing literature by examining one potential method of moderating framing effects – requiring justification for decisions.

The justification of punishment is an age-old debate which continues unresolved. In late twentieth century several attempts were made to reconcile the two opposing justifications: retributivism and consequentialism. But these attempts focused narrowly on merely one manifestation of punishment, i.e.: criminal punishment carried out by the state. To the extent that these mixed justifications are successful, they relate to only one (undoubtedly important) manifestation of punishment. But clearly punishment can occur in many different institutional contexts, and the institutions in each context vary dramatically in complexity and relevance. I recommend analyzing punishment in its manifold manifestations.

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.