Organizational justice

Last updated

Greenberg (1987) introduced the concept of organizational justice with regard to how an employee judges the behavior of the organization and the employee's resulting attitude and behaviour. [1] For example, if a firm makes redundant half of the workers, an employee may feel a sense of injustice with a resulting change in attitude and a drop in productivity.

Contents

Justice or fairness refers to the idea that an action or decision is morally right, which may be defined according to ethics, religion, fairness, equity, or law. People are naturally attentive to the justice of events and situations in their everyday lives, across a variety of contexts. [2] Individuals react to actions and decisions made by organizations every day. An individual's perceptions of these decisions as fair or unfair can influence the individual's subsequent attitudes and behaviors. Fairness is often of central interest to organizations because the implications of perceptions of injustice can impact job attitudes and behaviors at work. Justice in organizations can include issues related to perceptions of fair pay, equal opportunities for promotion, and personnel selection procedures.

There are two forms of Organizational Justice; outcome favorability and outcome justice. Outcome favorability is a judgement based on personal worth, and outcome justice is based on moral propriety.[ citation needed ] Managers often believe that employees think of justice as merely the desired outcome.

Overview

Four components of organizational justice are distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Research also suggests the importance of affect and emotion in the appraisal of the fairness of a situation as well as one's behavioral and attitudinal reactions to the situation. [3] Much literature in the industrial/organizational psychology field has examined organizational justice as well as the associated outcomes. Perceptions of justice influence many key organizational outcomes such as motivation and job satisfaction. [4] [5]

Recent criticism of the conception of organizational justice as an attitudinal perception note the danger of mistaking a worker’s perception of just treatment with a worker being treated fairly . [6]

Corporate social responsibility

A concept related to organizational justice is corporate social responsibility (CSR). Organizational justice generally refers to perceptions of fairness in treatment of individuals internal to that organization while corporate social responsibility focuses on the fairness of treatment of entities external to the organization. Corporate social responsibility refers to a mechanism by which businesses monitor and regulate their performance in line with moral and societal standards such that it has positive influences on all of its stakeholders. [7] Thus, CSR involves organizations going above and beyond what is moral or ethical and behaving in ways that benefit members of society in general. A study by Susen and Etter (2024) found that perceptions of organizational justice mediate the link between ESG performance and employee satisfaction, underscoring the role of fairness in shaping employee responses to corporate sustainability. [8] Other scholars such as Rupp et al. (2006) have furthermore proposed that an employee's perceptions of their organization's level of corporate social responsibility can impact that individual's own attitudes and perceptions of justice even if they are not the victim of unfair acts. [9]

Roots in equity theory

The idea of organizational justice stems from equity theory, [10] [11] which posits that judgments of equity and inequity are derived from comparisons between one's self and others based on inputs and outcomes. Inputs refer to what a person perceives to contribute (e.g., knowledge and effort) while outcomes are what an individual perceives to get out of an exchange relationship (e.g., pay and recognition). Comparison points against which these inputs and outcomes are judged may be internal (one's self at an earlier time) or external (other individuals).

Types

Researchers have classified three main components of organizational justice: distributive, procedural, and interactional. [12]

Distributive

Distributive justice is conceptualized as the fairness associated with decision outcomes and distribution of resources. The outcomes or resources distributed may be tangible (e.g., pay) or intangible (e.g., praise). Perceptions of distributive justice can be fostered when outcomes are perceived to be equally applied. [11] Distributive justice may involve one or more of three different rationales for how resources are distributed: equity, equality and need. Equity focuses more on rewarding employees based on their contribution, and thus can be viewed as capitalist justice: the ratio of one's inputs to one's outcomes. Equality on the other hand provides each employee with the same compensation. Finally, need is providing a benefit based on one's personal requirement. [12]

Procedural

Procedural justice is defined as the fairness of the processes that lead to outcomes. When individuals feel that they have a voice in the process or that the process involves characteristics such as consistency, accuracy, ethicality, and lack of bias then procedural justice is enhanced. [13] Procedural justice is the appropriateness of the allocation process. [12] It includes six main points which are consistency, lack of bias, accuracy, representation of all concerned, correction and ethics. Procedural justice seems to be essential to maintaining institutional legitimacy. What is more interesting is that procedural justice affects what workers believe about the organization as a whole.

Interactional

Interactional justice refers to the treatment that an individual receives as decisions are made and can be promoted by providing explanations for decisions and delivering the news with sensitivity and respect. [14] A construct validation study published in 2001 suggests that interactional justice should be broken into two components: interpersonal and informational justice. [15] Interpersonal justice refers to perceptions of respect and propriety in one's treatment while informational justice relates to the adequacy of the explanations given in terms of their timeliness, specificity, and truthfulness

Interpersonal justice "reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities and third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes".

Informational justice "focuses on explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion".

Proposed models

Three different models have been proposed to explain the structure of organizational justice perceptions including a two factor model, a three factor model, and a four factor model. Many researchers have studied organizational justice in terms of the three factor model; [16] [17] while others have used a two factor model in which interpersonal justice is subsumed under procedural justice while yet some other studies suggest a four factor model best fits the data. [15] Greenberg (1990) proposed a two-factor model and Sweeney and McFarlin (1993) found support for a two-factor model composed of distributive and procedural justice. Through the use of structural equation modeling, Sweeney and McFarlin found that distributive justice was related to outcomes that are person-level (e.g., pay satisfaction) while procedural justice was related to organization-level outcomes (e.g., organizational commitment). [18]

The accuracy of the two-factor model was challenged by studies that suggested a third factor (interactional justice) may be involved. Some argue that interactional justice is distinct from procedural justice because it represents the social exchange component of the interaction and the quality of treatment whereas procedural justice represents the processes that were used to arrive at the decision outcomes. [14] Generally researchers are in agreement regarding the distinction between procedural and distributive justice but there is more controversy over the distinction between interactional and procedural justice. [19] Colquitt demonstrated that a four-factor model (including procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice) fit the data significantly better than a two or three factor model. Colquitt's construct validation study also showed that each of the four components have predictive validity for different key organizational outcomes (e.g., commitment and rule compliance). [15]

Another model of organizational justice proposed by Byrne [20] and colleagues [21] suggested that organizational justice is a multi-foci construct, one where employees see justice as coming from a source - either the organization or their supervisor. Thus, rather than focus on justice as the three or four factor component model, Byrne suggested that employees personify the organization and they distinguish between whether they feel the organization or supervisor have treated them fairly (interactional), use fair procedures (procedural), or allocate rewards or assignments fairly (distributive justice). A number of researchers used this model exploring the possibility that justice is more than just 3 or 4 factors. [22]

The role of affect in perceptions

One of the key constructs that has been shown to play a role in the formation of organizational justice perceptions is affect. The precise role of affect in organizational justice perceptions depends on the form of affectivity being examined (emotions, mood, disposition) as well as the context and type of justice being measured. Affect may serve as an antecedent, outcome, or even a mediator of organizational justice perceptions.

Barsky, et al. provide a model that explains the role of affect and emotions at various stages of the appraisal and reaction stages of justice perception formation and illustrates that injustice is generally an affect-laden and subjective experience. [3] Affect and emotions can be part of the reactions to perceived injustice, as studies have shown that the more injustice that is perceived, the higher degrees of negative emotions are experienced. In addition, affect can act as a mediator between justice perceptions and actions taken to redress the perceived injustice. Affect plays this role in equity theory such that negative affective reactions act as a mediator between perceptions and actions, as emotional reactions to justice motivate individuals to take action to restore equity.

A 2007 meta-analysis by Barsky and Kaplan condenses many studies on this topic and explains that state and trait level affect can influence one's perceptions of justice. [23] It supports the idea that both state and trait level negative affect can act as antecedents to justice perceptions. State and trait level negative affect are negatively associated with interactional, procedural, and distributive justice perceptions. Conversely, positive state and trait affectivity was linked to higher ratings of interactional, procedural and distributive justice.

Based on the research regarding the central role of affect in justice perceptions, Lang, Bliese, Lang, and Adler (2011) extended this research and studied the idea that sustained clinical levels of negative affect (depression) could be a precursor to perceptions of injustice in organizations. They tested longitudinal cross-lagged effects between organizational justice perceptions and employee depressive symptoms and found that depressive symptoms do lead to subsequent organizational justice perceptions. [24] Thus, affect can serve as an antecedent to justice perceptions in this instance.

Antecedents of perceptions

Employee participation

One antecedent to perceptions of organizational justice is the extent to which employees feel that they are involved in decision-making or other organizational procedures. Higher levels of justice are perceived when employees feel that they have input in processes than when employees do not perceive that they have the opportunity to participate.(Greenberg & Folger, 1983) The opportunity or ability to participate in decision making improves an individual's perceptions of procedural justice, even when the decision is unfavorable to the individual. [25] In addition, other studies have shown that employee input is related to both procedural and interpersonal justice perceptions. [26]

Communication

A second antecedent to organizational justice perceptions is organizational communication with employees. Communication has been shown to be related to interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. The quality of communication by an organization or manager can improve justice perceptions by improving employee perceptions of manager trustworthiness and also by reducing feelings of uncertainty. [26] It is important that the information provided be accurate, timely, and helpful in order for the impact on justice perceptions to be positive. [27]

Justice climate

Perceptions of organizational justice can be influenced by others, such as co-workers and team members. Recent research suggests that team level perceptions of justice form what is called a 'justice climate' which can impact individuals' own views of justice. [28] Employees working within a team may share their perceptions with one another which can lead to a shared interpretation of the fairness of events. Research findings show that individuals can "learn" justice evaluations from team members and these can lead to homogeneity of justice perceptions within teams, creating a strong justice climate. [29] Thus, group-level perceptions of justice can be conceptualized as an antecedent to individuals' justice perceptions.

Outcomes of perceptions

Employees' perceptions of injustice within the organization can result in a myriad of outcomes both positive and negative. Outcomes are affected by perceptions of organizational justice as a whole or by different factors of organizational justice. Commonly cited outcomes affected by organizational justice include trust, performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), absenteeism, turnover, and emotional exhaustion.

Trust

The relationship between trust and organizational justice perceptions is based on reciprocity. Trust in the organization is built from the employee's belief that since current organizational decisions are fair, future organizational decisions will be fair. The continuance of employee trust in the organization and the organization continuing to meet the employee's expectations of fairness creates the reciprocal relationship between trust and organizational justice. [16] Research has found that procedural justice is the strongest predictor of organizational trust. [19] [30] A positive relationship between an employee and supervisor can lead to trust in the organization. [22]

Performance

The impact of organizational justice perceptions on performance is believed to stem from equity theory. This would suggest that when people perceive injustice they seek to restore justice. One way that employees restore justice is by altering their level of job performance. Procedural justice affects performance as a result of its impact on employee attitudes. Distributive justice affects performance when efficiency and productivity are involved. [19] Improving justice perceptions improves productivity and performance. [22]

Job satisfaction and organizational commitment

Job satisfaction was found to be positively associated with overall perceptions of organizational justice such that greater perceived injustice results in lower levels of job satisfaction and greater perceptions of justice result in higher levels of job satisfaction. [5] Additionally, organizational commitment is related to perceptions of procedural justice such that greater perceived injustice results in diminished commitment while greater perceived justice results in increases commitment to the organization. [16] [19]

Organizational citizenship behavior

Organizational citizenship behaviors are actions that employees take to support the organization that go above and beyond the scope of their job description. OCBs are related to both procedural justice and distributive justice perceptions. [16] [19] [22] As organizational actions and decisions are perceived as more just, employees are more likely to engage in OCBs. Karriker and Williams (2009) established that OCBs are directed toward either the supervisor or the organization depending on whether the perception of just stems from the supervisor or the organization. Additionally, a relationship was found between interpersonal justice and OCBs; however, this relationship was not mediated by the source of justice perceptions. [22]

Counterproductive work behaviors

Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) are "intentional behaviors on the part of an organizational member viewed by the organization as contrary to their legitimate interests." [31] There are many reasons that explain why organizational justice can affect CWBs. Increased judgments of procedural injustice, for instance, can lead to employee unwillingness to comply with an organization's rules [19] because the relationship between perceived procedural injustice and CWBs could be mediated by perceived normative conflict, i.e., the extent to which employees perceive conflict between the norms of their workgroup and the rules of the organization. [32] Thus, the more perceptions of procedural injustice lead employees to perceived normative conflict, the more it is likely that CWBs occur.

Absenteeism and withdrawal

Absenteeism, or non-attendance, is another outcome of perceived injustice related to equity theory. Failure to receive a promotion is an example of a situation in which feelings of injustice may result in an employee being absent from work without reason. Johns (2001) found that when people saw both their commitment to the organization and the organization's commitment to them as high, absenteeism is diminished. [33] Additionally, withdrawal, or leaving the organization, is a more extreme outcome stemming from the same equity theory principles. Distributive justice perceptions are most strongly related to withdrawal. [19]

Emotional exhaustion

Emotional exhaustion, which related to employee health and burnout, is related to overall organizational justice perceptions. As perceptions of justice increase employee health increases and burnout decreases. Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice perceptions are able to capture state specific levels of emotional exhaustion which fade over time; however, overall organizational justice perceptions give the most stable picture of the relationship between justice perceptions and emotional exhaustion over time. [17]

Health

According to Schunck et al., physical health is related to an employee's perception of distributive justice. As the employee's perception of earnings justice decreases, the physical health of the employee decreases. [34]

Turnover intention

Perceptions of injustice and unfairness are significant antecedents and determinants of turnover intention. [35] [36] In other words, turnover intention is a considerable outcome of an employee's fairness perceptions. Although all three dimensions of organizational justice may play a role in an employee's intention to exit an organization, interactional and distributive justice are more predictive of turnover intention than procedural justice. [37]

Conflict management

Managers who are sensitive to organizational justice issues are more likely to adopt cooperative conflict management methods in the face of conflicts with employees. [38]

See also

Related Research Articles

Distributive justice concerns the socially just allocation of resources, goods, opportunity in a society. It is concerned with how to allocate resources fairly among members of a society, taking into account factors such as wealth, income, and social status. Often contrasted with just process and formal equal opportunity, distributive justice concentrates on outcomes. This subject has been given considerable attention in philosophy and the social sciences. Theorists have developed widely different conceptions of distributive justice. These have contributed to debates around the arrangement of social, political and economic institutions to promote the just distribution of benefits and burdens within a society. Most contemporary theories of distributive justice rest on the precondition of material scarcity. From that precondition arises the need for principles to resolve competing interest and claims concerning a just or at least morally preferable distribution of scarce resources.

Procedural justice is the idea of fairness in the processes that resolve disputes and allocate resources. One aspect of procedural justice is related to discussions of the administration of justice and legal proceedings. This sense of procedural justice is connected to due process (U.S.), fundamental justice (Canada), procedural fairness (Australia), and natural justice, but the idea of procedural justice can also be applied to nonlegal contexts in which some process is employed to resolve conflict or divide benefits or burdens. Aspects of procedural justice are an area of study in social psychology, sociology, and organizational psychology.

Fairness or being fair can refer to:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Job satisfaction</span> Attitude of a person towards work

Job satisfaction, employee satisfaction or work satisfaction is a measure of workers' contentment with their job, whether they like the job or individual aspects or facets of jobs, such as nature of work or supervision. Job satisfaction can be measured in cognitive (evaluative), affective, and behavioral components. Researchers have also noted that job satisfaction measures vary in the extent to which they measure feelings about the job. or cognitions about the job.

Equity theory focuses on determining whether the distribution of resources is fair. Equity is measured by comparing the ratio of contributions and benefits for each person. Considered one of the justice theories, equity theory was first developed in the 1960s by J. Stacey Adams, a workplace and behavioral psychologist, who asserted that employees seek to maintain equity between the inputs that they bring to a job and the outcomes that they receive from it against the perceived inputs and outcomes of others. According to Equity Theory, in order to maximize individuals' rewards, we tend to create systems where resources can be fairly divided amongst members of a group. Inequalities in relationships will cause those within it to be unhappy to a degree proportional to the amount of inequality. The belief is that people value fair treatment which causes them to be motivated to keep the fairness maintained within the relationships of their co-workers and the organization. The structure of equity in the workplace is based on the ratio of inputs to outcomes. Inputs are the contributions made by the employee for the organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social exchange theory</span> Generalization theory explaining social behaviour regarding society and economics

Social exchange theory is a sociological and psychological theory that studies the social behavior in the interaction of two parties that implement a cost-benefit analysis to determine risks and benefits. The theory also involves economic relationships—the cost-benefit analysis occurs when each party has goods that the other parties value. Social exchange theory suggests that these calculations occur in romantic relationships, friendships, professional relationships, and ephemeral relationships as simple as exchanging words with a customer at the cash register. Social exchange theory says that if the costs of the relationship are higher than the rewards, such as if a lot of effort or money were put into a relationship and not reciprocated, then the relationship may be terminated or abandoned.

Interactional justice is defined by sociologist John R. Schermerhorn as the "...degree to which the people affected by decision are treated by dignity and respect". The theory focuses on the interpersonal treatment people receive when procedures are implemented.

The leader–member exchange (LMX) theory is a relationship-based approach to leadership that focuses on the two-way (dyadic) relationship between leaders and followers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affective events theory</span> Psychological model

Affective events theory (AET) is an industrial and organizational psychology model developed by organizational psychologists Howard M. Weiss and Russell Cropanzano to explain how emotions and moods influence job performance and job satisfaction. The model explains the linkages between employees' internal influences and their reactions to incidents that occur in their work environment that affect their performance, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. The theory proposes that affective work behaviors are explained by employee mood and emotions, while cognitive-based behaviors are the best predictors of job satisfaction. The theory proposes that positive-inducing as well as negative-inducing emotional incidents at work are distinguishable and have a significant psychological impact upon workers' job satisfaction. This results in lasting internal and external affective reactions exhibited through job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

Job performance assesses whether a person performs a job well. Job performance, studied academically as part of industrial and organizational psychology, also forms a part of human resources management. Performance is an important criterion for organizational outcomes and success. John P. Campbell describes job performance as an individual-level variable, or something a single person does. This differentiates it from more encompassing constructs such as organizational performance or national performance, which are higher-level variables.

Workplace deviance, in group psychology, may be described as the deliberate desire to cause harm to an organization – more specifically, a workplace. The concept has become an instrumental component in the field of organizational communication. More accurately, it can be seen as "voluntary behavior that violates institutionalized norms and in doing so threatens the well-being of the organization".

Employee silence refers to situations where employees withhold information that might be useful to the organization of which they are a part, whether intentionally or unintentionally. This can happen if employees do not speak up to a supervisor or manager.

Within organizations people often have to make decisions about whether to speak up or remain silent - whether to share or withhold their ideas, opinions, and concerns ... [The problem is that] in many cases, they choose the safe response of silence, withholding input that could be valuable to others or thoughts that they wish they could express.

— Frances J. Milliken and Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison, Shades of Silence: Emerging Themes and Future Directions for Research on Silence in Organizations

Workplace revenge, or workplace retaliation, refers to the general action of purposeful retaliation within the workplace. Retaliation often involves a power imbalance; the retaliator is usually someone with more power in the workplace than the victim, and retaliation may be done to silence the victim so the retaliator can avoid accountability for workplace bullying, workplace harassment, or other misbehaviors in the workplace. Retaliation, legally, refers to actions taken as punishment for legally permitted behaviors: disciplinary actions taken by employers in reaction to behaviors that are counter to applicable laws or to established institutional policies are permitted as part of the employer's ability to control the work environment.

Perceived organizational support (POS) is the degree to which employees believe that their organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being and fulfills socioemotional needs. POS is generally thought to be the organization's contribution to a positive reciprocity dynamic with employees, as employees tend to perform better to reciprocate received rewards and favorable treatment. This idea bloomed from Eisenberger and Rhoades' organizational support theory.

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is employee's behavior that goes against the legitimate interests of an organization. This behavior can harm the organization, other people within it, and other people and organizations outside it, including employers, other employees, suppliers, clients, patients and citizens. It has been proposed that a person-by-environment interaction (the relationship between a person's psychological and physical capacities and the demands placed on those capacities by the person's social and physical environment.) can be utilized to explain a variety of counterproductive behaviors. For instance, an employee who is high on trait anger is more likely to respond to a stressful incident at work with CWB.

Social undermining is the expression of negative emotions directed towards a particular person or negative evaluations of the person as a way to prevent the person from achieving their goals.

Compensation and benefits (C&B) is a sub-discipline of human resources, focused on employee compensation and benefits policy-making. While compensation and benefits are tangible, there are intangible rewards such as recognition, work-life and development. Combined, these are referred to as total rewards. The term "compensation and benefits" refers to the discipline as well as the rewards themselves.

Behavioral ethics is a field of social scientific research that seeks to understand how individuals behave when confronted with ethical dilemmas. It refers to behavior that is judged within the context of social situations and compared to generally accepted behavioral norms.

Abusive supervision is most commonly studied in the context of the workplace, although it can arise in other areas such as in the household and at school. "Abusive supervision has been investigated as an antecedent to negative subordinate workplace outcome." "Workplace violence has combination of situational and personal factors". The study that was conducted looked at the link between abusive supervision and different workplace events.

Machiavellianism in the workplace is a concept studied by many organizational psychologists. Conceptualized originally by Richard Christie and Florence Geis, Machiavellianism refers to a psychological trait construct where individuals behave in a cold and duplicitous manner. It has been adapted and applied to the context of the workplace and organizations by psychology academics.

References

  1. ↑ Greenberg, Jerald (1987-01-01). "A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories". Academy of Management Review. 12 (1): 9–22. doi:10.5465/amr.1987.4306437. ISSN   0363-7425.
  2. ↑ Tabibnia, Golnaz; Satpute, Ajay B.; Lieberman, Matthew D. (April 2008). "The sunny side of fairness: preference for fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry)". Psychological Science. 19 (4): 339–347. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02091.x. ISSN   0956-7976. PMID   18399886. S2CID   15454802.
  3. 1 2 Barsky, Adam; Kaplan, Seth A.; Beal, Daniel J. (2011-01-01). "Just Feelings? The Role of Affect in the Formation of Organizational Fairness Judgments". Journal of Management. 37 (1): 248–279. doi:10.1177/0149206310376325. ISSN   0149-2063. S2CID   145805971.
  4. ↑ Latham, Gary; Pinder, Craig (2005-02-01). "Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century". Annual Review of Psychology. 56: 485–516. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142105. PMID   15709944.
  5. 1 2 Al-Zu'bi, Hasan (2010-01-01). "Al-Zu'bi, Hasan Ali. (2010). A Study of Relationship between Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction, International journal of Business and management, 5 (12): 102-109". International Journal of Business Performance Management. 5: 102–109.
  6. ↑ Hargrove, M. Blake (2023). "Taking a broader view of justice as a component of occupational health.". In Tetrick, L.E.; Fisher, G.G.; Ford, M.T.; Quick, J.C. (eds.). Handbook of Occupational Health and Safety (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  7. ↑ Carroll, Archie B. (1999-09-01). "Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct". Business & Society. 38 (3): 268–295. doi:10.1177/000765039903800303. ISSN   0007-6503. S2CID   145258410.
  8. ↑ Susen, Malte; Etter, Michael Andreas (2024). "Beyond Financial Outcomes: Assessing the Influence of ESG Tilt and Momentum on Employee Satisfaction in S&P 500 Corporations". Academy of Management Proceedings. doi:10.5465/AMPROC.2024.15068.
  9. ↑ Rupp, Deborah E.; Ganapathi, Jyoti; Aguilera, Ruth V.; Williams, Cynthia A. (2006). "Employee Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: An Organizational Justice Framework". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 27 (4): 537–543. doi:10.1002/job.380. ISSN   0894-3796. JSTOR   4093915.
  10. ↑ Adams, J. S. (1963). "Towards an understanding of inequity". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67 (5): 422–436. doi:10.1037/H0040968. PMID   14081885. S2CID   146725430.
  11. 1 2 Adams, J. Stacy (1965-01-01). "Inequity In Social Exchange". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2: 267–299. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2. ISBN   9780120152025. ISSN   0065-2601.
  12. 1 2 3 Cropanzano, Russell; Bowen, David; Gilliland, Stephen (2007-11-01). "The Management of Organizational Justice". Academy of Management Perspectives. 21 (4): 24–48. doi:10.5465/AMP.2007.27895338.
  13. ↑ Leventhal, Gerald S. (1980), Gergen, Kenneth J.; Greenberg, Martin S.; Willis, Richard H. (eds.), "What Should Be Done with Equity Theory?", Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Boston, MA: Springer US, pp. 27–55, doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2, ISBN   978-1-4613-3087-5 , retrieved 2021-06-14
  14. 1 2 Bies, R. J.; Moag, J. F. (1986). "Interactional Justice: Communication Criteria of Fairness". Research on Negotiations in Organizations. 1. JAI Press: 43–55.
  15. 1 2 3 Colquitt, Jason (2001-07-01). "On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 86 (3): 386–400. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386. PMID   11419799. S2CID   4645571.
  16. 1 2 3 4 DeConinck, James B. (2010-12-01). "The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees' level of trust". Journal of Business Research. 63 (12): 1349–1355. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.01.003. ISSN   0148-2963.
  17. 1 2 Liljegren, Mats; Ekberg, Kerstin (2009). "The associations between perceived distributive, procedural, and interactional organizational justice, self-rated health and burnout". Work (Reading, Mass.). 33 (1): 43–51. doi:10.3233/WOR-2009-0842. ISSN   1051-9815. PMID   19597284.
  18. ↑ Sweeney, Paul D.; McFarlin, Dean B. (1993-06-01). "Workers′ Evaluations of the "Ends" and the "Means": An Examination of Four Models of Distributive and Procedural Justice". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 55 (1): 23–40. doi:10.1006/obhd.1993.1022. ISSN   0749-5978.
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cohen-Charash, Yochi; Spector, Paul E. (2001-11-01). "The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 86 (2): 278–321. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2958. ISSN   0749-5978.
  20. ↑ Byrne, Z. S. (1999). How do procedural and interactional justice influence multiple levels of organizational outcomes? Symposium presented at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
  21. ↑ Byrne, Z. S. & Cropanzano, R. (2000, April). To which source do I attribute this fairness? Differential effects of multi-foci justice on organizational work behaviors. Presented at the 15th annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA
  22. 1 2 3 4 5 Karriker, Joy; Williams, Margaret (2009-02-01). "Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Mediated Multifoci Model †". Journal of Management. 35: 112–135. doi:10.1177/0149206307309265. S2CID   145383957.
  23. ↑ Barsky, Adam; Kaplan, Seth A. (January 2007). "If you feel bad, it's unfair: a quantitative synthesis of affect and organizational justice perceptions". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 92 (1): 286–295. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.286. ISSN   0021-9010. PMID   17227170.
  24. ↑ Lang, Jessica; Bliese, Paul; Lang, Jonas; Adler, Amy (2011-02-01). "Work Gets Unfair for the Depressed: Cross-Lagged Relations Between Organizational Justice Perceptions and Depressive Symptoms". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 96 (3): 602–18. doi:10.1037/a0022463. PMID   21299270.
  25. ↑ Bies, Robert J.; Shapiro, Debra L. (1988). "Voice and Justification: Their Influence on Procedural Fairness Judgments". The Academy of Management Journal. 31 (3): 676–685. doi:10.2307/256465. ISSN   0001-4273. JSTOR   256465.
  26. 1 2 Kernan, Mary; Hanges, Paul (2002-11-01). "Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 87 (5): 916–28. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.916. PMID   12395816.
  27. ↑ Schweiger, David M.; DeNisi, Angelo S. (1991). "Communication with Employees following a Merger: A Longitudinal Field Experiment". The Academy of Management Journal. 34 (1): 110–135. doi:10.2307/256304. ISSN   0001-4273. JSTOR   256304.
  28. ↑ Li, Andrew; Cropanzano, Russell (2009-06-01). "Fairness at the Group Level: Justice Climate and Intraunit Justice Climate". Journal of Management. 35 (3): 564–599. doi:10.1177/0149206308330557. ISSN   0149-2063. S2CID   144480781.
  29. ↑ Roberson, Quinetta M.; Colquitt, Jason A. (2005-07-01). "Shared and Configural Justice: A Social Network Model of Justice in Teams". Academy of Management Review. 30 (3): 595–607. doi:10.5465/amr.2005.17293715. ISSN   0363-7425.
  30. ↑ Hubbell, Anne; Chory, Rebecca (2005-03-01). "Motivating factors: Perceptions of justice and their relationship with managerial and organizational trust". Communication Studies. 56: 47–70. doi:10.1080/0008957042000332241. S2CID   143998934.
  31. ↑ Gruys, Melissa; Sackett, Paul (2003-03-01). "Investigating the Dimensionality of Counterproductive Work Behavior". International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 11: 30–42. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00224.
  32. ↑ Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, Pablo; Verano-Tacoronte, Domingo (2007-11-20). "Investigating the effects of procedural justice on workplace deviance: Do employees' perceptions of conflicting guidance call the tune?". International Journal of Manpower. 28: 715–729. doi:10.1108/01437720710835183. hdl: 10553/42572 .
  33. ↑ Johns, G. (2001-01-01). "The psychology of lateness, absenteeism, and turnover". Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 2: Organizational Psychology: 232–252. doi:10.4135/9781848608368.n13. ISBN   9780761964896.
  34. ↑ Schunck, Reinhard; Sauer, Carsten; Valet, Peter (2015). "Unfair Pay and Health: The Effects of Perceived Injustice of Earnings on Physical Health". European Sociological Review. 31 (6): 655–666. doi:10.1093/esr/jcv065.
  35. ↑ DeConinck, James B.; Stillwell, C. Dean (2004-03-01). "Incorporating organizational justice, role states, pay satisfaction and supervisor satisfaction in a model of turnover intentions". Journal of Business Research. 57 (3): 225–231. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00289-8. ISSN   0148-2963.
  36. ↑ Nadiri, Halil; Tanova, Cem (2010-03-01). "An investigation of the role of justice in Turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry". International Journal of Hospitality Management. 29: 33–41. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.05.001.
  37. ↑ Thomas, Princy; Nagalingappa, Dr G. (2013-06-26). "Consequences of Perceived Organizational Justice: An Empirical Study of White-Collar Employees". Rochester, NY. SSRN   2285411.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  38. ↑ Tatum, B.; Eberlin, Richard (2008-11-07). "The relationship between organizational justice and conflict style". Business Strategy Series. 9 (6): 297–305. doi:10.1108/17515630810923603.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.