Trust in the supervisor is predicted by procedural justice better than by distributive justice. We were unable to examine the relation between trust in supervisor and interactional justice, which we predict should be stronger than the relation between trust and procedural justice. Still, although procedural justice is a better predictor of trust than distributive justice, one is not to take lightly the strong relation between distributive justice and trust.
In accordance with our expectations, leader-member exchange quality is mainly related to interactional justice in comparison to distributive and procedural justice. Justice and Turnover Intensions Turnover intentions and actual turnover are predicted to relate to both proce- dural and distributive justice. Thus, as long as procedures are fair, specific negative outcomes would not cause people the wish to leave the organization.
Procedural justice is also considered to be a better predictor of turnover intentions than interactional justice Masterson et al. Our results show procedural and distributive justice to equally predict turnover intentions and interactional justice to be the least potent predictor of intentions. There were too few studies of turnover itself for us to include in the meta-analysis. Additional research is needed to study the effects of justice perceptions on actual turnover behavior. Negative Emotions Negative emotional reactions are similarly predicted by procedural and dis- tributive injustice.
This is in accordance with our expectations.
IN ADDITION TO READING ONLINE, THIS TITLE IS AVAILABLE IN THESE FORMATS:
Is it justified studying three types of justice? The general picture that emerges from the meta-analysis is that distributive, procedural, and interac- tional justice are strongly related, yet distinct constructs. This conclusion is based on a the level of correlations among the three types of justice and b the different relationships between the three types of justice and their corre- lates.
Thus, our findings support the need in having separate operationaliza- tions of justice Colquitt, What do we know about the antecedents of organizational justice? Our findings show that generally, we do not know enough. Although we have enough data on some aspects of organizational practices e.
Also, we do not know enough about organizational antecedents of interactional justice. In fact, we did not have enough data on many predictors of justice to be included in our meta-analysis. Furthermore, almost all field studies of justice used a cross-sectional, single-source design, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the direction of causality. The range of variables studied in laboratory experiments is much smaller than that studied in field studies, but it allows us to conclude that voice, outcome negativity, and outcome satisfaction are predictors of fairness.
As for the personal antecedents of perceived fairness, we did not find much relation of demographic variables with perceived fairness, meaning that regard- less of age, gender, race, and education, all people view justice similarly. Appar- ently, if there is a relation between demographics and perceived fairness, it is far from simple. We see it as a challenge for future research to examine this question further and to furnish us with a better knowledge of the conditions, if any, under which various demographic and personality variables affect justice perceptions.
We also recommend expanding the range of demographic pre- dictors to factors such as culture, as discussed above. Studies looking at person- ality have been quite scarce. The variable given the most attention has been negative affectivity, but it is not clear why it is more related to the perceptions of procedural than distributive justice. The relationship between self-esteem and procedural justice is smaller than we would expect based on the Group Value Model.
Therefore, it should be further investigated to untangle its possi- ble complexity. What do we know about the outcomes of organizational justice? Procedural and distributive justice negatively predict continuance commit- ment. Therefore, future research should establish that causal relations among fairness perceptions, emotions, and attitudes. Field studies and laboratory experiments. Our findings show that at times, field and laboratory studies yield similar, corroborating results, if not in magni- tude, than in direction.
Thus, the relationship between procedural and distribu- tive justice are stronger in the laboratory than in the field, but are still in the same direction. The relationship between distributive justice and interactional justice, and between procedural and interactional justice, are similar across field and laboratory studies. The direction of results concerning outcome nega- tivity and justice perceptions is also similar across field and laboratory studies, but outcome satisfaction is more strongly related to distributive justice in the laboratory, than in the field.
And finally, the relations between supervisor satisfaction and justice perceptions are identical in the field and in the laboratory. At other times, however, field and laboratory studies yield different outcomes, not only in magnitude, but also in pattern.
Voice influences both distributive and procedural justice when examined in the laboratory, but only procedural justice when examined in the field. Work performance is strongly related to procedural justice when examined in the field, but not in the laboratory. These findings mean that we should be careful when generalizing from laboratory experiments to field studies and that such generalizations should not be done without proper examination of their validity.
Where do we go from here? We have already stressed the need to examine a more antecedents of justice perceptions at the personal and the organiza- tional levels, b more antecedents and consequences of interactional justice, and c causal relations between perceived justice and its correlates. We also recommend studying more personal and situational predictors of reactions to perceived organizational justice.
For example, following Lind and Tyler , we may predict that procedural justice will be more important than distributive justice under contexts of difficult decisions that might hurt or be of great significance to the person affected by them e. Context may influence not only the importance of kind of justice, but also the importance of various principles within each kind of justice. A similar contextual influence of perceptions of procedural justice exists as well.
Another direction we need to take should focus on the nature of unfairness when it is beneficial for the perceiver. We know a lot about unfairness when it harms the person. However, what happens when unfairness is beneficial to the person? Will there be differences in the perception of distributive and procedural justice?
The Remaking of Boundaries between Public and Private Science
Will there be a difference in the reactions to such unfairness? Finally, as we have already noted, most studies of fairness in field settings have been surveys. Thus we have a wealth of information concerning correlates of fairness, but we need studies that address causal relations. These include field experiments and quasiexperiments as well as longitudinal studies. The contribution of the current meta-analysis to our field.
Our meta- analysis complements another meta-analysis on the issue of justice in organi- zations which was conducted simultaneously with ours Colquitt et al. Although both meta-analyses examine the topic of organizational fairness, the studies are quite different. These differences in the conceptualization of justice allow the reader a unique opportunity to compare and contrast the same issue examined from two points of view. Whereas the current study separates field and laboratory studies, a practice supported by our results, Colquitt et al.
- Also by Barry M. Staw.
- Technical Analysis.
- Still with the Music: My Autobiography!
Also, whereas the present study uses only data that was measured in organiza- tional contexts or used organizational-relevant manipulations, Colquitt et al. We used procedures recommended by Rosen- thal , where Colquitt et al. We do not see the present article as the appropriate place to debate the rationale and merit of some of the above differences. We do believe, however, that the mere fact that despite these differences in focus and methodology, the results of both studies point to similar directions in relations where results overlapped is very good news to the robustness of results in the field of organizational justice.
Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol- ogy, 67, — Adams, J. Inequity in social exchange. Berkowitz Ed. New York: Academic Press. Predicting the decision to confront or report sexual harass- ment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, — Alexander, S. The role of procedural and distributive justice in organiza- tional behavior.
Looking for other ways to read this?
Social Justice Research, 1, — The role of fairness and privacy in electronic performance monitoring and control systems: Some preliminary findings. Influence of social comparisons on percep- tions of organizational fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, — The influence of social comparisons on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4, — Discriminating among organizational politics, justice, and support.
Journal of Organizational Behavior. Integrating justice constructs into the turnover process: A test of a referent cognitions model. Academy of Management Journal, 40, — Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, — Why managers should pay greater attention to the reasons they give for a workforce reduction. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 1, 41— The effect of gender and organizational level on how survivors appraise and cope with organizational downsizing. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, — Austin, W.
Justice and organizational punishment: Attitudinal outcomes of disciplinary events. Social Justice Research, 6, 39— Barrett-Howard, E. Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, — Perceived mentoring fairness: Relationships with gender, mentoring type, mentoring experience, and mentoring needs. Sex Roles, 40, — Applicant reactions to selection: Development of the procedural justice scale.
Coping with a layoff : A longitudinal study of victims. Journal of Management, 21, — Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17, 3— Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness.
- Herman Aguinis' publications in refereed journals.
- Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy.
- IN ADDITION TO READING ONLINE, THIS TITLE IS AVAILABLE IN THESE FORMATS:.
- Professor Neal Ashkanasy?
- Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 27 - 1st Edition.
- 1st Edition?
- The Blank Slate. Modern Denial of Human Nature [html,ugly]!
- Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2012, Bristol, UK, September 24-28, 2012. Proceedings, Part I.
- Whose Learning?.
- Refine your editions:.
Lewicki, B. Bazerman Eds. Bies, R. Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31, — Towards an understanding of the interactive relationship between outcomes and procedures: The mediating role of trust. Unpublished data set.
Brockner, J. The moderating impact of sex on the equity—satisfaction relation- ship: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, — Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, — Interactive effects of proce- dural justice and outcome negativity on victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37, — When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, — An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, , — Interactive effect of job content and context on the reactions of layoff survivors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, — Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 59— Understanding procedural and interactional justice: A multi-foci approach to predicting organizational commitment, citizenship behaviors, and job performance.
Manuscript in preparation. Psychological Reports, 72, — Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, — Cohen-Charash, Y. Perceived fairness of referral methods: The effect of justice attitudes. Louis, MO. Colquitt, J. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal of Applied Psychology. Some tests of the self-interest and group-value models of procedural justice: Evidence from an organizational appeal procedure. Academy of Management Journal, 36, — Influence of speed of third-party intervention and outcome on negotiator and constituent fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 33, — Cropanzano, R. Workplace justice and the dilemma of organizational citizenship. VanVugt, M. Snyder, T. Biel Eds.
Lon- don: Routledge. Procedural justice and worker motivation. Porter Eds. New York: McGraw—Hill. Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. Robertson Eds. New York: Wiley. Using social exchange theory to distinguish proce- dural from interactional justice. Injustice and work behavior: A historical review. Cropanzano Ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Crosby, F. A model of egoistical relative deprivation.
Psychological Review, 83, 85— The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, — Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover.
Research in Organizational Behavior: Volume 27 : Barry M. Staw :
Human Relations, 45, — The role of fairness in implementing large-scale change: Employee evaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, — Procedural fairness and organizational commitment under conditions of growth and decline. Social Justice Research, 8, — Is outcome fairness used to make procedural fairness judgments when procedural information is inaccessible? Social Justice Research, 9, — Getting more than you pay for: Organizational citizenship behavior and pay for performance plans.
Academy of Management Journal, 42, — The relation between trust in the supervisor and subordinate organizational citizenship behavior. Military Psychology, 7, 1— Deutsch, M. Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, — Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective.
Journal of Management, 24, — Diekmann, K. Self-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, — The perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment scale: Development and validation of a measure of interpersonal treatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, — Procedural justice and performance effects of computer performance monitor- ing: The role of process input and control. Employee perceptions of the fairness of work incentive pay plans. The effects of information management policies on reactions to human resource information systems: An integration of privacy and procedural justice perspectives.
Personnel Psychology, 52, — Job context, selection decision outcome, and the perceived fairness of selection tests: Biodata as an illustrative case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, — Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of employee outcomes in Hong Kong. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, — Distributive and procedural justice: Effects of outcomes, inputs, and procedures.
Folger, R. Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, — Perceived injustice, referent cognitions, and the concept of comparison level. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 14, 88— Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, — Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, — Counterproductive work behavior CWB in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 1— Frey, F. Perceptions of justice afforded by formal grievance systems as predictors of a belief in a just workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, — Workplace justice and job satisfaction as predictors of satisfaction with union and management. Identifying international assignees at risk for premature departure: The interactive effect of outcome favorability and procedural fairness.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 13— Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: Test of a causal model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, — State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. A test of the group values and control models of procedural justice from the competing perspectives of labor and management. Personnel Psychology, 48, — Procedural fairness in performance appraisal: Beyond the review session.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 11, — Gilliland, S. The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, — Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, — Procedural and distributive justice in the editorial review process. Personnel Psychology, 49, — Communication, procedural justice, and employee attitudes: Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26, 63— Voluntariness of association as a moderator of the impor- tance of procedural and distributive justice.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, — Greenberg, J. Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55— The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81— Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Why do workers bite the hands that feed them? Employee theft as a social exchange process. Cummings Eds. An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews.
Procedural and distributive justice: Examining equity in a university setting. For regional delivery times, please check When will I receive my book? Sorry, this product is currently out of stock. Flexible - Read on multiple operating systems and devices. Easily read eBooks on smart phones, computers, or any eBook readers, including Kindle.
Free Shipping Free global shipping No minimum order. Researchers, Professionals and Students in this field. Powered by. You are connected as. Connect with:. Use your name:. Thank you for posting a review! We value your input. Share your review so everyone else can enjoy it too. Your review was sent successfully and is now waiting for our team to publish it. Reviews 0. Updating Results. If you wish to place a tax exempt order please contact us. Contains chapters that cover an array of organizational topics, ranging from personality and decision making in organizations, to interpersonal dynamics such as helping and group process, to organizational-level analyses of legitimization and change.
This book talks about the field of organizational behavior using an interdisciplinary approach. This twenty-seventh volume of Research in Organizational Behavior carries forward the tradition of high-level scholarship on a broad array of organizational topics. Like many previous volumes, this collection is truly interdisciplinary, with chapters ranging from personality and decision making in organizations, to interpersonal dynamics such as helping and group process, to organizational-level analyses of legitimization and change.
Each of the essays is well-reasoned, thoughtful, and provocative - proving, once again, that the field of organizational behavior is flourishing in both its depth and scope. Interdisciplinary, with a wide range of subjects discussed by experts in their fields, this book addresses personality development, empowerment, creativity, dysfunctional groups, institutionalization, and more.
Our customers have not yet reviewed this title. Be the first add your own review for this title. Sign in to My Account. Karnac Books on Twitter. Karnac Books on Facebook. Attachment Theory.
Autism and Aspergers. Brief Psychotherapy.