Understanding Employee Job Satisfaction: The Importance of Procedural and Distributive Justice

The importance of perceived fair treatment and its effect on employee job satisfaction cannot be overlooked. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that structural procedural justice, interpersonal procedural justice, and distributive justice each accounted for significant unique variance in employee job satisfaction. In addition, when job satisfaction was regressed on all three types of organizational justice, all three justice perceptions significantly predicted job satisfaction. However, interpersonal procedural justice and distributive justice were more strongly related to job satisfaction with distributive justice having the strongest relationship of the three fairness perceptions.     

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.     

Folk conceptions of fairness and unfairness

This study sought to identify the standards people invoke when judging the fairness or unfairness of outcomes of everyday events, and to determine whether their standards of judgment vary according to the fairness of the outcome and to their perspective, i.e. whether the outcomes are ones they personally experienced or witnessed. The standards of fairness laypeople were found to invoke, even when unprompted, coincided with the standards social scientists have emphasized (e.g. distributive, procedural) in their theories of psychological justice. However, laypeople emphasized these standards differently when accounting for the fairness–unfairness of personal experiences versus those they had witnessed, and when accounting for fair versus unfair outcomes. As predicted, they were more likely to invoke procedural and interpersonal criteria when judging the fairness–unfairness of their own outcomes, but more likely to invoke distributive criteria when judging others' outcomes. Regardless of perspective, laypeople cited procedural criteria as the major determinants of their fairness judgements; but cited procedural, distributive and interpersonal criteria as comparably influential in determining their unfairness judgments. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Influence of National Culture on the Perceived Fairness of Grading Procedures: A Comparison of the United States and China

Although the desire to be treated fairly is a fundamental human preference, perceptions of fair treatment can be influenced by cultural beliefs and values. For this article, the author used a scenario-based experimental study to examine students' fairness perceptions of grading procedures in 2 countries with distinct national cultures, China and the United States. The results suggest that culture can influence students' perceptions of the fairness of 2 aspects of procedural justice: voice and interpersonal justice. Chinese students were more likely to value interpersonal justice (i.e., being treated with dignity and respect, and being provided with explanations of grading procedures) and perceived the lack of interpersonal justice as less fair than did U.S. participants. In contrast, U.S. students were more likely to perceive voice (i.e., the opportunity to discuss and appeal a grading decision) as fair. These findings are connected to differences in the cultural values of the United States and China.     

Intrinsic Motivation,Organizational Justice,and Creativity

For employees to generate creative ideas that are not only original, but also useful to their company, they must interact with their workplace environment to determine organizational needs. Therefore, it is important to consider aspects of the individual as well as their environment when studying creativity. Intrinsic motivation, a predictor of individual level creativity, is associated with feelings of enjoyment and interest in the task at hand. To the extent that tasks are nested in an environment, intrinsically motivated individuals may perceive their environment more favorably than individuals who are not interested in the task. Specifically, such individuals may view the rewards (i.e., distributive justice), decision-making procedures (i.e., procedural justice), and their interpersonal treatment (i.e., interpersonal justice) in their work environment as more fair, due to the positive affect associated with intrinsic motivation. This study examines the relationships between intrinsic motivation, perceptions of organizational fairness, and creativity. Participants (n = 133) worked on a task in a laboratory setting and completed measures of intrinsic motivation and organizational justice. Findings were supportive that intrinsically motivated participants viewed their environment as fairer than participants that were uninterested in the task. Consequently, distributive and interpersonal justice were shown to significantly mediate the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.     

When does priming justice promote forgiveness? On the importance of distributive and procedural justice for self and others

Two studies show that thinking about justice can both enhance and impede forgiveness, depending on whether thoughts about distributive and procedural justice for self and others are activated. In Study 1 (n = 197), participants expressed more forgiveness towards a prior transgressor when primed to think about justice for self or procedural justice for others, and less forgiveness when primed to think about distributive justice for others. Study 2 (n = 231) used an alternate priming method and replicated these effects by inducing an interpersonal transgression and measuring forgiveness intentions, emotions and behavior. Study 2 also showed that priming justice influences forgiveness especially when the perceived severity of an interpersonal offense is high. The current research shows that activating justice cognitions can enhance or impinge on forgiveness in predictable ways. We discuss contributions to emerging justice theory, potential implications, and future directions.     

APPLYING UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT THEORY TO EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIOR: AN INTEGRATIVE INVESTIGATION

Drawing on uncertainty management theory, this study integrates justice research with the elaboration likelihood model and considers employee voice behavior as a function of 3 (interpersonal, procedural, and distributive) facets of justice perceptions in combination. Specifically, a positive relationship is hypothesized between interpersonal justice and employee voice behavior, which is buffered by high procedural justice. This 2‐way interaction effect is also examined to determine whether it would be mitigated by low distributive justice. Results from a sample of 395 manager–employee dyads provide support for these predictions. Furthermore, results from a supplementary analysis show that the 3‐way interaction effect on employee voice behavior was more pronounced for those who had a high feeling of uncertainty (i.e., those with a shorter job tenure or occupational tenure). Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.     

PROCEDURAL AND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE IN THE EDITORIAL REVIEW PROCESS

Based on organizational justice theories, a model of procedural and distributive justice is proposed to explain authors' reactions to editorial decisions and the editorial review process. Authors ( n = 106) provided justice perceptions and future journal submission intentions upon receiving an editorial decision letter. The editor provided information on editorial decisions and review processes. Explanation and interpersonal sensitivity were important procedural justice dimensions in predicting distributive justice reactions and intentions to submit future work to the journal. Explanations appear particularly important when the decision is negative. Journal submission intentions were positively related to distributive justice reactions for inexperienced, but not experienced, authors. In addition, journal submission intentions were positively related to the perceived explanation received for experienced, but not inexperienced, authors. Discussion focuses on implications for organizational justice theories and for journal publishing and HR practices.     

Perceptions of Justice in Employment Selection Decisions: The Role of Applicant Gender

In contrast to the vast majority of justice literature that controls for applicant gender, the present study investigated the role of applicant gender in relation to applicant procedural and distributive justice perceptions after being informed of an organization's reject/accept decision. A sample of 503 students completed a selection test, believing the results would be used to make initial selection decisions for an organization recruiting from a university. Two weeks later, participants were given selection decisions (randomly assigned), and procedural and distributive justice perceptions were assessed. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated gender moderated the relationship between selection decision favorability and organizational justice perceptions. As hypothesized, in comparison with rejected males, rejected female applicants reacted most negatively to both forms of justice. On the other hand, selected female applicants had a more positive reaction than selected male applicants to both procedural and distributive justice. Potential implications for these and other findings are discussed.     

The influence of national culture on the perceived fairness of grading procedures: a comparison of the United States and China

Although the desire to be treated fairly is a fundamental human preference, perceptions of fair treatment can be influenced by cultural beliefs and values. For this article, the author used a scenario-based experimental study to examine students' fairness perceptions of grading procedures in 2 countries with distinct national cultures, China and the United States. The results suggest that culture can influence students' perceptions of the fairness of 2 aspects of procedural justice: voice and interpersonal justice. Chinese students were more likely to value interpersonal justice (i.e., being treated with dignity and respect, and being provided with explanations of grading procedures) and perceived the lack of interpersonal justice as less fair than did U.S. participants. In contrast, U.S. students were more likely to perceive voice (i.e., the opportunity to discuss and appeal a grading decision) as fair. These findings are connected to differences in the cultural values of the United States and China.     

The influence of sexual harassment frequency and perceptions of organizational justice on victim responses to sexual harassment

Organizational justice theory was used to understand the conditions that influence how women respond when sexually harassed. Specifically, this study examined whether sexual harassment frequency interacts with perceptions of four types of organizational justice (procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational) to predict two types of victim responses (confrontation and reporting). With data collected from 257 female employees, it was found that the interaction between sexual harassment frequency and perceptions of distributive justice and the interaction between sexual harassment frequency and perceptions of procedural justice predicted reporting, whereas the interaction between sexual frequency and perceptions of distributive justice predicted confrontation. The interaction between sexual harassment frequency and perceptions of informational justice predicted both confrontation and reporting. Implications for organizations are discussed.     

Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects

Although organizational justice has been shown to have behavioral consequences, there remains a surprising amount of variation in how individuals react to fair and unfair treatment. The present study drew on three integrative theories in the justice literature—fairness heuristic theory, uncertainty management theory, and fairness theory—to identify personality traits that could explain such variation. From these theories, we identified trust propensity, risk aversion, and morality (rooted in circumplex models of personality) as potential moderators. A laboratory study provided some support for the prediction that the three traits moderate the effects of procedural, interpersonal, and distributive justice on task performance and counterproductive behavior. The moderating effects of the three traits explained more variance in the outcomes than moderators based in the justice literature (equity sensitivity, sensitivity to befallen injustice) or the five-factor model of personality. Taken together, the results suggest that the three integrative theories can inform the search for personality-based moderators of justice effects.     

How fair versus how long: An integrative theory-based examination of procedural justice and procedural timeliness

Although studies have linked procedural justice to a range of positive attitudes and behaviors, the focus on justice has neglected other aspects of decision-making procedures. We explore one of those neglected aspects: procedural timeliness—defined as the degree to which procedures are started and completed within an acceptable time frame. Do employees react to how long a procedure takes, not just how fair it seems to be? To explore that question, we examined the potential effects of procedural timeliness using six theories created to explain the benefits of procedural justice. This integrative theory-based approach allowed us to explore whether “how long” had unique effects apart from “how fair.” The results of a three-wave, two-source field study showed that procedural timeliness had a significant indirect effect on citizenship behavior through many of the theory-based mechanisms, even when controlling for procedural justice. A laboratory study then replicated those effects while distinguishing procedures that were too fast versus too slow. We discuss the implications of our results for research on fostering citizenship behavior and improving supervisors’ decision-making procedures.     

Perception of Injustice as a Predictor of Support for Workplace Aggression

In order to determine the relationship between perceptions of injustice and support for workplace aggression, 139 subjects were presented with four scenarios representing different levels and types of injustice. Subjects then responded to an eight-item aggression scale. Support for aggressive behavior across the scenarios generally corresponded to the amount and type of perceived injustice; a procedural injustice scenario was perceived as the most unjust and led to the most support for aggression. Although the interpersonal and distributive injustice scenarios were seen as virtually identical in terms of injustice, there was significantly more support for aggression with interpersonal injustice. The strongest predictor of support for aggression in the justice scenarios, however, was simply the degree of support for aggression in a neutral, or control, scenario. It is suggested that employers need to be concerned both about fair and courteous relations with employees and also with identifying generally aggressive employees.     

Distributive Justice for Others,Collective Angst,and Support for Exclusion of Immigrants

Harsh treatment of others can reflect an underlying motivation to view the world as fair and just and also a dispositional tendency to believe in justice. However, there is a critical need to refine and expand existing knowledge, not only to identify underlying psychological processes but also to better understand how justice may be implicated in support for exclusionary policies. Across two studies, we show that support for policies that restrict immigrants is exclusively associated with thoughts about fair outcomes for other people (distributive justice for others). In Study 1, Americans' dispositional tendency to believe in distributive justice for others was associated with greater support for a policy proposing to further restrict immigrant job seekers' capacity to gain employment in the United States. In Study 2, we experimentally primed thoughts about justice in a sample of U.S. police officers. Support for a policy that mandated stricter policing of illegal immigration was strongest among officers who first thought about fair outcomes for other people, relative to other unique justice primes. Across both studies, distributive justice for others was associated with greater collective angst—perceived threat towards the future existence of Americans. Moreover, collective angst mediated the link between distributive justice for others and support for restrictive policies. Overall, this research suggests that thoughts about distributive justice for others can especially diminish compassion towards immigrants and other underprivileged groups via support for exclusionary policies. In addition, merely thinking about distributive justice for others may be sufficient to amplify social callousness.     

Evaluating advisors: A policy‐capturing study under conditions of complete and missing information

Decision‐makers' relative preferences for various advisor characteristics were investigated in two multilevel policy‐capturing studies. The characteristics under consideration were: advisor expertise, advisor confidence, advisor intentions, and whether that advisor was the sole available source of advice. In Study 1, decision‐makers had access to all relevant information about the advisors. In contrast, some relevant information about the advisors was systematically made unavailable in Study 2, which allowed an investigation of the effect of missing information on decision‐makers' evaluations of advisors. Results from both studies indicated that advisor expertise and intentions were most important in promoting decision‐makers' positive evaluations of advisors, that this effect was even more pronounced under conditions of missing information, and that advisor expertise and intentions also interacted synergistically. Given that expertise and good intentions are determinants of an advisor's trustworthiness, the results highlight the interpersonal nature of advice giving and taking. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Justice in Teams: The Context Sensitivity of Justice Rules Across Individual and Team Contexts1

Two empirical studies investigated the context sensitivity of various rules for fostering organizational justice using hypothetical vignettes. Study 1 compared the importance of distributive justice rules (equity, equality, need) and procedural justice rules (process control, decision control, consistency, correctability, accuracy, bias suppression, ethicality) across individual and team contexts. The results showed that team contexts enhanced the importance of equality, consistency, and decision control. Study 2 compared the importance of procedural justice rules across different types of teams. The results showed that the accuracy rule was more important in small teams, while the consistency and bias suppression rules were more important in diverse teams. The importance of other rules, including interpersonal and informational justice, did not vary across the experimental conditions.     

Procedural Justice and Culture

The past fifteen years have seen the development of a considerable research literature on the social psychology of procedural justice (see Lind & Tyler, 1988, for a review). Procedural justice research reveals some serious shortcomings in the exchange theories that have traditionally dominated Western analyses of the social psychology of groups, and in so doing, the procedural justice literature has important ramifications for cross-cultural psychology. Results from a number of studies conducted in the United States and Western Europe show that individualistic, self-interest based models of human behaviour are insufficient to explain procedural justice phenomena. Instead, procedural justice effects frequently reveal strong group-oriented concerns and motivations even in cultural contexts generally thought to be characterized by individualistic orientations. The research literature also shows that if a group's procedures are judged to be fair, people are more likely to show group-oriented behaviour and to hold more favourable attitudes toward the group and its leaders. These findings have led to the development of a theory of justice judgments—the Lind and Tyler group-value theory—which is based on group norms and relations rather than on social exchange theory. We describe a general model of social behaviour that integrates group- and individually-oriented behaviour, and we discuss the implications of the model for social and cross-cultural psychology.     

Influence of role and gender on the use of distributive versus procedural justice principles

Differences in perceptions of fairness may result from differential emphasis on distributive and procedural justice. The author found that organizational role and gender influenced the extent to which distributive and procedural justice principles were used when participants allocated and evaluated pay raises. When participants took the role of a supervisor, they were more likely to use procedural justice principles; when they took the role of a subordinate, they were more likely to use distributive justice principles. Also, men were more likely to use distributive justice than procedural justice principles when allocating and evaluating raises. These findings suggest that organizations should become aware of individual and role-based differences in emphasis on justice-related factors that could potentially lead to perceptions of unfairness.     

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.