The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness

This study explored the relationship between 3 dimensions of organizational structure--centralization, formalization, and size--and perceptions of procedural and interactional fairness. Data from 11 organizations (N = 209) indicated that, as predicted, centralization was negatively related to perceptions of procedural fairness, and organizational size was negatively related to interactional fairness. However, contrary to predictions, formalization was not related to perceptions of procedural fairness. Results suggest that organizational structure and design should play a more prominent role in our thinking about organizational fairness.     

SO YOU DIDN'T GET THE JOB … NOW WHAT DO YOU THINK? EXAMINING OPPORTUNITY‐TO‐PERFORM FAIRNESS PERCEPTIONS

Although the last 10 years have witnessed an increased recognition of the importance of procedural fairness in selection contexts, most empirical research has focused on job relevance as the primary influence on fairness perceptions. There is reason to believe, however, that "opportunity-to-perform" (OTP) perceptions are also an important aspect of fairness perceptions and become particularly important following negative feedback (i.e., not receiving a job offer). Using both qualitative and quantitative data from a large sample of applicants to an agency of the U.S. government ( N = 754), we examine (a) how OTP relates to fairness judgments, (b) how receiving negative feedback affects this relationship, (c) differences in OTP across a variety of different selection methods, and (d) determinants of OTP perceptions. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses confirmed that OTP was an important predictor of overall procedural fairness and was the single most important procedural rule after receiving negative feedback. Practical implications of this pattern, the obtained differences in OTP across assessments, and results regarding the determinants of OTP are discussed.     

Linking Justice, Performance, and Citizenship via Leader–Member Exchange

While organizational justice continues to garner attention by researchers, why perceptions of justice influence a variety of outcomes is still in need of explanation. In this paper, we examine one type of social exchange process that may provide a better link between perceptions of fairness and important organizational outcomes. Specifically, we examine how leader–member exchange (LMX) affects the relationship between employee perceptions of fairness and supervisor-rated performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Data from our study demonstrates that LMX fully mediates the relationship between interactional justice and performance and OCBs. In addition, the results demonstrate that LMX moderates the relationship between both distributive and procedural justice and OCBs.     

The Role of Attributions and Fairness in Understanding Job Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures and Decisions

Purpose

Drawing mainly upon Applicant Attribution-Reaction Theory (AART), we clarify and underscore the role of attribution dimensions (personal control, external control, and stability) in forming applicant fairness perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral reactions.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Students seeking (or about to seek) jobs (N = 264) participated in an experimental study in which procedural justice rules and outcome favorability (selected or rejected) were manipulated. Participants reported their attributions, fairness perceptions, and behavioral intentions. Hypotheses were tested through SEM and bootstrapping.

Findings

Applicant attributions were predicted by outcome favorability and the extent to which the interview process satisfied/violated procedural justice rules. In line with AART, process fairness perceptions mediated relationships between applicant attribution dimensions and both organizational perceptions and behavioral intentions.

Implications

Organizations should satisfy justice rules in employee selection processes because such rules affect applicant attributions, which in turn predict perceptions and behavioral intentions. In addition to identifying antecedents and consequences of fairness perceptions, antecedents and consequences of applicant attributions should be investigated, as both relate to important organizational outcomes.

Originality/Value

This study is one of a very few to test propositions from AART. Through an experimental design of high internal validity, we show that outcome favorability and the satisfaction/violation of justice rules predict job applicant attributions (personal control, external control, and stability). We further show that applicants’ attributions explain unique variance in their perceptions of the employing organization and in their behavioral intentions (e.g., recommend organization to others; litigate) beyond that explained by selection outcome and fairness perceptions.     

Who Delivers Justice? Source Perceptions of Procedural Fairness1

Tyler and Bies (1990) argue that how leaders enact and apply formal procedures can affect perceptions of procedural fairness as much as the formal procedures themselves. This study examined directly the extent to which workers see either formal policies and procedures or their supervisors as the source most responsible for the procedural fairness they receive in their performance evaluations. Group differences in these source perceptions between exempt and nonexempt workers were also explored. Results indicate that workers attribute the responsibility for procedural fairness jointly and independently to both their organization's formal policies and procedures and to their supervisors. Results at the group level of analysis indicate that nonexempt workers perceive formal policies and procedures to be more responsible for procedural fairness than do exempt workers. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Investigating the Moderating Role of Cultural Practices on the Effect of Selection Fairness Perceptions

Utilizing a sample of applicants to positions in a global corporation, we examined whether cultural practices moderate the effect of selection fairness perceptions on organizational attractiveness and job choice. Positive relationships were anticipated between fairness perceptions and outcomes, and performance orientation and uncertainty avoidance cultural practices were hypothesized to moderate the effects of structural and information sharing perceptions, respectively. Structural fairness perceptions were positively associated with both outcomes, but information‐sharing perceptions were significantly related only to organizational attractiveness. National variability in the effect of selection fairness perceptions was observed only for the effect of structural perceptions on organizational attractiveness. Performance orientation moderated this effect such that the strongest relationship was seen among applicants from more performance‐oriented countries.     

HEARING IT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE: THE INFLUENCE OF SOURCE, LEADER-RELATIONS, AND LEGITIMACY ON SURVIVORS' FAIRNESS PERCEPTIONS

This study developed and tested a model of survivors' fairness perceptions. Data on leader-member relations and affective commitment was collected from 217 R&D professionals approximately 15 months prior to a major layoff. A second wave of data assessed source of layoff announcement, legitimacy of the organizational account, and procedural and distributive fairness 1 month after the layoff occurred. Results of path analysis confirmed hypothesized relationships, and the variance accounted for in distributive and procedural fairness was 24% and 48%, respectively. Procedural fairness was higher for survivors who were informed of impending layoffs by their managers. However, this effect was stronger for high than for low leader-member exchange (LMX) employees. Legitimacy of the account was positively related to procedural fairness. Distributive fairness was indirectly related to the independent variables through procedural fairness. Affective commitment of 78 of the original respondents was assessed approximately 24 months after the layoff. Post-layoff affective commitment was significantly related to procedural but not to distributive fairness perceptions. The findings underscore the critical role of direct supervisors in layoff announcements as well as providing evidence of the long-term effects of procedural fairness on survivor commitment.     

Perceptions of the organizational context and psychological contract breach: Assessing competing perspectives

This study examines how employees’ perceptions of specific features of the organizational context—organizational politics and procedural justice—are related to their evaluations of psychological contract breach and subsequent attitudes and behaviors. Across three studies, we examined the appropriateness of four models for describing relationships among the focal constructs. Results of these studies support (a) an environmental responsiveness model in which psychological contract breach mediates the effects of politics and justice on employee outcomes, and (b) a general fairness evaluation model where politics, justice, and psychological contract breach serve as indicators of a higher order factor that predicts employee attitudes and behavior. Implications and directions for future research are presented.     

Absolute vs Relative Performance Rating Formats: Implications for fairness and organizational justice

The choice of performance rating format may influence employees' fairness perceptions. Participants in two studies, one consisting of 208 participants and the other of 393 participants, evaluated the fairness of common relative and absolute rating formats. The participants in the second study also evaluated the fairness of two rating formats, one absolute and one relative, presented in organizational contexts of varying procedural and distributive justice. Results indicate that not only are absolute formats perceived as more fair than relative formats, but differences in fairness perceptions also occur among relative and absolute formats. Furthermore, it appears that rating format influences procedural justice, especially when outcomes are perceived as fair. Implications for organizations' appraisal practices are discussed.     

Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance

Although management of drug testing programs is becoming a critical organizational issue, no systematic conceptual framework has been applied to the study of employee reactions to drug testing. In this study an organizational justice framework was used to explain and predict the relationships among two types of justice (procedural justice and outcome fairness) employee attitudes (job satisfaction, commitment, and management trust), and behavior (turnover intentions and performance). Survey data from 195 employees in a pathology laboratory indicated that justice predicts employee attitudes and performance. Specifically, procedural justice, but not outcome fairness, predicted all 5 criterion variables. These results demonstrate the importance of procedural justice perceptions for predicting employee reactions to drug testing programs.     

Due process model of procedural justice in performance appraisal: promotion versus termination scenarios

In a laboratory study, 318 student participants (148 male, 169 female, and one who did not report sex; M age 25.0, SD = 6.0) in introductory organizational behavior classes responded to scenarios in which performance appraisal resulted in either employee promotion or termination. Each scenario had varying levels of three procedural justice criteria for performance appraisal. For both promotion and termination outcomes, analysis showed that, as the number of criteria increased, perceptions of procedural fairness increased. A comparison between the two outcomes showed that perceptions of fairness were significantly stronger for the promotion outcome than for termination.     

Patterns of Change in Fairness Perceptions During the Hiring Process

The justice literature, to date, shows that changes in fairness perceptions over time are consequential for job attitudes. However, few studies have been directed at explicating how fairness perceptions change over time or individual differences in patterns of change. The present research attempts to fill this gap by exploring patterns of temporal changes in fairness perceptions toward the selection process during a hiring process and potential determinants for such change. In a 3‐wave longitudinal study of the entire hiring process (pre‐, in‐, and post‐process) using a latent growth mixture modeling approach, different patterns of change in perceived fairness were modeled. In addition, the role of Big Five personality factors to predict classes of temporal patterns was examined. Results suggest that, on average, fairness perceptions declined in a non‐linear way over time, with high initial levels of fairness perception corresponding to a lower rate of decline, and vice versa. Four unique classes of applicants exhibiting different initial scores and growth of fairness perceptions were identified, which were predicted by the personality factors of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for fairness theory and future research.     

Perceptions of Systemic Justice: The Effects of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice

The literature on organizational justice has identified 3 key components of this process: distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, we reasoned that employees may use perceptions of these 3 components as a basis for drawing inferences about the fairness of the organization as a whole (i.e., their perceptions of systemic justice). A field study was conducted on a sample of 232 employees working in various organizations. Results show that employees' perceptions of procedural justice and interactional justice in their organizations positively predicted perceptions of systemic justice (i.e., that the organization was fair overall). Perceptions of distributive justice, however, did not predict perceptions of systemic justice. Practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Test-Taker Reactions to the Selection Process: Effects of Outcome Favorability, Explanations, and Voice on Fairness Perceptions

This study examined the effects of providing an explanation and voice on fairness perceptions and reactions of test takers under favorable and unfavorable selection decisions. Participants took either a cognitive ability test or an overt integrity test in a simulated selection situation. Then, the voice manipulation was introduced. Participants were informed of the hiring decision with or without an explanation. Results showed that type of test had effects on procedural fairness perceptions such that these reactions were more positive when a cognitive ability test was used. The results of voice and explanation manipulations on fairness perceptions indicated that providing an explanation had a positive effect on perceptions but, surprisingly, face-validity perceptions were less favorable when participants had voice opportunity.     

The Effects of Regulatory Fit between Explanation Framing and Applicants’ Regulatory Foci on Applicant Reaction

Abstract

Drawing from regulatory fit theory and the literature on persuasion, the current study is the first to explore whether the fit between explanation framing and applicants’ regulatory foci could enhance applicant reaction. We hypothesized that a positively framed explanation fits with applicants’ promotion foci and that a negatively framed explanation fits with applicants’ prevention foci. Three studies were conducted in which participants with different regulatory foci rated their perceived procedural fairness and organizational attractiveness after reading differently framed recruitment advertisements, rejection letters, and job offer letters. The results supported our hypothesis by showing significant interactions between explanation framing and participants’ regulatory foci on procedural fairness and organizational attractiveness perception in the contexts of recruitment advertising and rejection letters. In these contexts, compared with receiving a negatively framed explanation, promotion-focused recipients reported higher levels of perceived fairness and organizational attractiveness after receiving a positively framed explanation, and promotion-focused recipients’ fairness and attractiveness perceptions were higher than prevention-focused recipients’, after receiving a positively framed explanation. Moreover, perceived procedural fairness mediated the relationship between regulatory fit and perceived organizational attractiveness. However, regulatory fit effects were not found in the context of job offer letters.     

The moderating influence of procedural fairness on the relationship between work-life conflict and organizational commitment

To help employees better manage work-life conflict, organizations have introduced various initiatives, which have met with mixed results. The present studies examined the utility of a procedurally based approach to understanding employees' reactions to work-life conflict. The authors examined whether the fairness of procedures used by organizational authorities to plan and implement decisions moderates the (inverse) relationship between work-life conflict and employees' organizational commitment. Three studies using different methodologies showed support for the moderating role played by procedural fairness. That is, the tendency for greater work-life conflict to lead to lower commitment was significantly less pronounced when procedural fairness was high rather than low. Theoretical contributions to the work-life conflict and organizational justice literatures are discussed, as are practical implications.     

A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: an examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions

Most organizational justice research takes a cross-sectional approach to examining the relationship between perceived fairness and individuals' attitudes. This study examines the effect of procedural and distributive justice over time. It is suggested that individuals acquire more information and experience with procedures and outcomes over time. These changes in information and experience affect the influence of procedural and distributive justice on organizational attitudes. Faculty perceptions of tenure and promotion decisions were assessed 3 times (preallocation, short-term postallocation, long-term postallocation) over a 2-year period. Results generally supported the hypotheses. Procedural justice was most influential prior to and soon after outcome decisions were made. Distributive justice was most influential 1 year later.     

Procedural Perceptions and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court

This paper examines public support toward the U.S. Supreme Court. Although previous scholars have rightly focused on policy outcomes in explaining public attitudes toward the Court, outcome‐based theories are unable to explain why support for the Court remains high despite public disagreement with Court decisions. Some scholars argue the low visibility of the Court shields it from public scrutiny. The exposure explanation, however, is inconsistent with the empirical finding that to know the Court is to love it. This paper reconciles these differences by showing how media coverage of the Court can influence procedural perceptions and subsequent support for the Court. Expanding on recent studies examining media coverage of the Court and perceptions of fairness, this study examines how procedural perceptions mediate support for the Court. An experimental design shows that the media's portrayal of procedural information as either fair or unfair influences public evaluations of procedural fairness and subsequently support for the Court as an institution and the individual justices serving on the Court's bench.     

A policy‐modeling approach to examining fairness judgments in organizational acquisitions

Organizational acquisitions may be characterized by the degree of friendliness or hostility as well as the degree of autonomy or absorption of the organizations following the merger. This study examined judgments of fairness across four types of organizational acquisitions. Students read fictitious newspaper accounts of a university acquisition and rated their expectations and perceptions of fairness about possible changes. Results indicated that in an acquisition, both the procedures used and the outcomes provided influenced how fair the acquisition was perceived. As predicted, the relative importance of procedures and outcomes in overall perceptions of fairness shifted depending on the context of the acquisition. As the desirability of the acquisition increased, individuals placed greater importance on the procedural elements. In a friendly and low integration acquisition, the processes and outcomes became equally important. Individuals faced with a high integration acquisition expected more unfair changes and fewer fair changes to occur. Furthermore, these results highlight the importance expectations play in perceptions of fairness. The type of acquisition will influence expectations for fair treatment. Under less desirable conditions (hostile and high‐integration mergers), organizations should take steps early in the process to manage fairness perceptions. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.

The field of organizational justice continues to be marked by several important research questions, including the size of relationships among justice dimensions, the relative importance of different justice criteria, and the unique effects of justice dimensions on key outcomes. To address such questions, the authors conducted a meta-analytic review of 183 justice studies. The results suggest that although different justice dimensions are moderately to highly related, they contribute incremental variance explained in fairness perceptions. The results also illustrate the overall and unique relationships among distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice and several organizational outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, evaluation of authority, organizational citizenship behavior, withdrawal, performance). These findings are reviewed in terms of their implications for future research on organizational justice.