组织公正感研究进展

章先介绍了公正及公正感的概念,进而分析了组织公正感的概念。国外组织公正感的研究可分成3个阶段,首先由Adams提出分配公平,之后Thibaut、Leventhal等提出程序公正,最后Bies等提出相互作用公正。尽管国外对组织公正感研究比较广泛,但对公正感的结构及测量方法还存在分歧,有单因素理论、双因素理论、三因素理论和四因素理论。     

不确定感在他人的程序公正与自我的合作行为之间的中介作用

以公平启发理论为基础,结合不确定管理理论,采用情境实验法(实验1)和行为实验法(实验2),探讨了不确定感这一工具性动机在他人的程序公正与自我的合作行为之间的中介作用。研究结果发现:(1)他人的程序公正会促进自我的合作行为的出现;(2)不确定感降低了自我的合作行为的出现;(3)不确定感中介了他人的程序公正对自我的合作行为的影响。     

家长式领导与组织公正感的关系

以428名企事业单位员工为调查对象,采用问卷法,探讨了家长式领导与组织公正感的关系,结果表明：（1）仁慈领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;德行领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;权威领导对领导公正有显著的消极影响;（2）在分配公正、程序公正上,德行与权威领导有显著负交互效应;在领导公正、领导解释上,仁慈与权威领导有显著负交互效应。最后,对研究的理论和实践意义作了探讨,并提出了未来的研究方向     

组织公正感理论及其在企业人力资源管理中的运用

组织公正感的研究近些年在美国受到了众多学者的关注,其研究成果也越来越多地被运用于公司管理的实践。而在中国,组织公正感理论还鲜为人知。本文试图对组织公正感理论的内容及其研究成果作一系统的分析,并在此基础上,阐述其对中国人力资源管理实践的意义,以及如何运用组织公正感理论。     

组织公正氛围的理论机制、研究视角及研究框架

组织公正是员工对工作场所公正环境的心理感知, 研究层面有个体与群体之分。以往研究多集中在个体层面, 以致研究结果缺乏对群体现象的有效解释。进入新世纪学者们开始关注群体层面的公正氛围研究, 并在理论和实证方面取得了较大突破。通过回顾相关研究可以发现：(1)在理论机制上, 公正氛围的形成可以通过社会信息加工理论、吸引-选择-磨合模型、公正传染概念和公正启发理论来解释; (2)在研究视角上, 主要存在维度视角、整体视角、感知来源视角、氛围属性视角和第三方视角; (3)在研究主题上, 主要涉及领导、团队和组织三方面对公正氛围的影响, 以及公正氛围对个体、团队和组织三个层面的影响效果。未来研究可着重从多种领导行为对不同公正氛围影响的比较、其他领导因素对公正氛围的影响、不同公正氛围对结果变量影响的比较、新视角公正氛围测量方法的尝试, 以及文化因素对公正氛围的影响研究等方面入手。     

转型时期的社会公正

我国当前正面临从传统到现代的深刻转型 ,社会公正方面的问题日益凸显。要解决公正问题必须考虑到我国的基本国情 ,即共产党领导和正在从事社会主义市场经济与现代化建设的实践。马克思主义的社会主义理论和三个代表思想理当成为基本的指导思想 ,同时也应吸取西方公正理论中的合理要素。解决公正问题的关键在于要有制度性的建构使这些理论真正落到实处 ,成为能动的实践力量。本文从此思路出发对当代转型中的社会公正问题以及理论与现实的巨大反差进行了分析 ,并提出可供选择的政策建议。     

从归因视角探讨组织公正感产生机制

目前组织公正感研究的重点是组织公正与后续行为之间的关系,但某一特定事件的公平/不公平感产生的过程却未得到实验检验.本研究旨在将归因理论的观点和方法纳入到公正判断之中,从归因的视角探讨组织公正感的产生机制.研究结果表明,归因过程是公平判断的认知前提,对公平判断有显著的预测作用.     

论公正的四个特征

公正是公正美德伦理与公正规范伦理的统一。公正是在一定历史时期全体社会成员共同遵守的首要社会道德规范和根本价值理念,也是社会实践中具有认知能力和自由选择能力的个体在处理人与人之间的关系时所表现出的公道、正直、无私、时中的道德品质。公正是反应性、相互性、时中性、公道性、历史性、人本性、规则性、主体性等抽象性要素的聚合。这些要素在不同历史条件下发生具体的、动态的变化,使公正具有反应性和相互性的核心特征、时中性和公道性的中道特征、历史性和人本性的时代特征、规则性和主体性的实践特征。     

组织公正研究:回顾与展望

文章主要回顾了组织公正40多年来的研究成果与进展,包括组织公正的概念和理论发展。并从组织公正概念的整合、机会公正、第三方公正、群体公正、跨文化研究、方法论等几个方面提出了进一步研究的思考和展望。     

组织不公正及其效果研究述评

从组织公正感的研究出发,比较全面地介绍了国外关于3种组织不公正,即分配不公、程序不公正和互动不公正研究及其效果,特别分析了组织不公正对组织的具体危害,这种危害包括隐蔽的攻击、退缩行为和公开的攻击。文章还介绍了我国学者关于分配不公平方面的研究。最后,作者指出组织不公正研究可能存在的问题,即组织不公正可能本质上不同于组织公正,组织不公正研究存在操作定义狭隘和跨文化障碍,以此为基础描述了未来的研究方向     

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.     

Fair process revisited: Differential effects of interactional and procedural justice in the presence of social comparison information

The competing views of fairness theory ( [Folger and Cropanzano, 1998] and [Folger and Cropanzano, 2001]) and fairness heuristic theory (Van den Bos, Lind, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997) were tested by studying the effects of interactional (IJ), procedural (PJ), and distributive justice (knowledge of others’ outcomes [OO]) upon evaluations of outcome fairness and customer satisfaction. The participants, 369 undergraduates, were randomly allocated to scenario-based experimental conditions. A 2 (IJ) × 2 (PJ) × 4 (OO) MANOVA and stepdown analyses provided evidence of “fair process” across all levels of distributive justice for outcome fairness (p<.001) and satisfaction (p<.001), but only in relation to the effects of interactional justice. No such effects were found for procedural justice. Implications for the development of justice theory are discussed.     

分配公正、程序公正、互动公正影响效果的差异

以大学生奖学金评比为例,探讨了组织公正各维度影响效果的差异。以661名大学生为被试,采用2×2×2的完全随机设计,以情境故事法（scenarios）呈现刺激,研究了奖学金评比中分配公正、程序公正、互动公正对大学生学习投入、班级荣誉感、班级归属感、与辅导员的关系的影响。结果表明,组织公正三个维度与效果变量之间存在清晰的对应影响关系：分配公正主要影响具体、以个人为参照的效果变量;程序公正主要影响与组织有关的效果变量;互动公正主要影响与上司有关的效果变量。     

When fairness neither satisfies nor motivates: The role of risk aversion and uncertainty reduction in attenuating and reversing the fair process effect

It is widely acknowledged that procedural justice has many positive effects. However, some evidence suggests that procedural justice may not always have positive effects and may even have negative effects. We present three studies that vary in method and participant populations, including an archival study, a field study, and an experiment, using data provided by the general American population, Indian software engineers, and undergraduate students in the US. We demonstrate that key work-related variables such as people’s job satisfaction and performance depend on procedural justice, perceived uncertainty, and risk aversion such that risk seeking people react less positively and at times negatively to the same fair procedures that appeal to risk averse people. Our results suggest that one possible reason for these effects is that being treated fairly reduces people’s perception of uncertainty in the environment and while risk averse people find low uncertainty desirable and react positively to it, risk seeking people do not. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of procedural justice including the uncertainty management model of fairness, the fair process effect, and fairness heuristic theory.     

Employer Treatment of Employees During a Community Crisis: The Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice

This study applies organizational justice principles to human resource decisions made during a crisis situation. Three-hundred and sixty-six working individuals of ice storm affected households responded to a telephone survey that included measures of interactional, procedural and distributive justice, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Confirmatory Factor Analysis suggested collapsing the interactional and procedural justice measures into one measure of procedural treatment. Overall, there was considerable support for the relevance of procedural justice and its interaction with distributive justice in predicting the work attitudes of employee following a disaster. Multiple regression analyses revealed that perceptions of procedural justice most strongly predicted job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Consistent with existing theory, an interaction between distributive and procedural was found to predict job satisfaction. The predicted interaction was not detected for organizational commitment.We would like to acknowledge the capable research assistance of Paula Warnholtz and the financial assistance from the Senate Research Committee at Bishop’s University.     

Fairness heuristic theory is an empirical framework: a reply to Arnadóttir

In this article on fairness heuristic theory, we point out some important flaws in Arnadóttir's (2002) claim that fairness heuristic theory is "not empirical," by which Arnadóttir meant that theory's predictions are knowable a priori, and are not contingent upon circumstances. To this end, we demonstrate that empirically testing effects predicted by fairness heuristic theory was and is important because this showed that the theory's propositions are not necessarily knowable a priori and are contingent upon circumstances. This implies that, according to Arnadóttir's definition, fairness heuristic theory clearly is an empirical framework. It would have been helpful if Arnadóttir had studied the fairness literature more thoroughly (as this would have easily revealed fairness heuristic theory to be not knowable a priori and to be contingent upon circumstances) and also if she had pointed out which of our studies fail to follow her line of reasoning. Our reply was written not as an attempt to defend fairness heuristic theory as we applaud, indeed are honored by, attempts to scrutinize our work in progress. Our only aim here was to point at some important flaws in the Arnadóttir article, because we think these will hamper rather than advance the science of psychology of justice.     

The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis

The correlates of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice were examined using 190 studies samples, totaling 64,757 participants. We found the distinction between the three justice types to be merited. While organizational practices and outcomes were related to the three justice types, demographic characteristics of the perceiver were, in large part, unrelated to perceived justice. Job performance and counterproductive work behaviors, considered to be outcomes of perceived justice, were mainly related to procedural justice, whereas organizational citizenship behavior was similarly predicted by distributive and procedural justice. Most satisfaction measures were similarly related to all justice types. Although organizational commitment and trust were mainly related to procedural justice, they were also substantially related to the other types of justice. Findings from laboratory and field studies are not always in agreement. Future research agendas are discussed.     

Justice and employee attitudes during organizational change: The mediating role of overall justice

IntroductionSeveral studies have investigated the mediating role of overall justice (OJ) in the relationships between specific dimensions of justice and employee attitudes. However, prior research has neglected to examine OJ during the process of organizational change, as suggested in fairness heuristic theory (FHT).ObjectiveThis study aims to replicate the results of previous studies and expand them by examining, in two contexts of organizational change implementation, the mediating role of OJ in the relationships between procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice (PJ, ITJ, and IFJ, respectively) and employee attitudes (job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and organizational commitment).MethodologyWe surveyed 537 employees experiencing a company reorganization (Study 1) and 188 employees experiencing a merger (Study 2).ResultsEach dimension of justice is related to OJ, which in turn is associated to employee attitudes. Furthermore, bootstrap results indicated that OJ mediates the effects of PJ, ITJ, and IFJ on job satisfaction and turnover intentions (in both studies), and on affective, normative, and continuance commitment (in Study 2).ConclusionOur findings show the importance of fairness during organizational change. Treating employees fairly in times of change is crucial for managers.