What's fair is fair--or is it? Value differences underlying public views about social justice

Individual differences in judgments of the fairness of various sociopolitical phenomena were examined in three surveys. Scales measuring two value dimensions thought to underlie the meaning of fairness were constructed, and survey respondents endorsing these different values were compared on their evaluation of the procedural and distributive fairness of political objects. Those endorsing the value of proportionality, hypothesized by equity theorists to underlie fairness judgments, judged equity-based public policies to be fairer than equality-based policies and judged that Ronald Reagan would be a fairer president than Walter Mondale. These people also emphasized the procedural aspects of government when judging government fairness. Respondents endorsing the value of egalitarianism, hypothesized by developmental theorists and some political philosophers to underlie fairness judgments, judged equality-based public policies to be fairer than equity-based policies and judged that Mondale would be a fairer president than Reagan. These people emphasized the distributive aspects of government when judging government fairness. Results support the naive moral philosopher image of the individual as judge of political objects (Tyler, 1984a). Political fairness judgments are ideological responses and are subject to the influence of the value structure of the judge (Tetlock, 1986).     

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.     

When the means justify the ends: effects of observability on the procedural fairness and distributive fairness of resource allocations

While there is substantial research examining how recipients react to allocations that vary in procedural fairness (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001 ), previous research has not examined how those dividing resources among themselves and others manipulate procedural fairness (Tyler & Smith, 1998 ). In this paper, we introduce a measure that allows us to compare procedural fairness across resource allocations, and we use an experimental procedure in which participants vary the procedural fairness of their allocations. In three studies, we show that those dividing resources make proactive tradeoffs between distributive and procedural fairness. Participants increased the procedural fairness of their allocations when they knew recipients would observe their procedures, but they were less likely to divide the resources equally among recipients. The decreased emphasis on distributive fairness when procedures were observable resulted in higher joint outcomes, suggesting that the observability of procedures has important implications for the efficiency of resource allocation in groups. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

Procedural fairness in performance appraisal: Beyond the review session

Utilizing an organizational justice perspective, this cross-organizational study developed procedural fairness dimensions for the appraisal review session and two contextual domains of the performance appraisal process. The contextual domains were: (a) the structure, policies, and support characterizing the formal appraisal system, and (b) the appraisal-related interactions that occur throughout the year between supervisors and subordinates. In addition, relationships of the three procedural variable sets and their respective individual variables with three fairness (two distributive justice and one global) criteria were assessed. Procedures from the session and system domains were found to be most useful for predicting the fairness criteria.     

The Influence of Decision Makers' Goals on Their Concerns About Procedural Justice1

Two studies examine how decision makers' goals of enhancing organizational effectiveness and promoting positive interpersonal relations shape their decision making when they are allocating scarce resources among group members. Past research has conceptualized this problem as one of balancing between the use of two distributive justice principles: equity and equality. The studies reported examine the degree to which authorities are also concerned about issues of procedural justice. The results suggest that experienced decision makers—both managerial and administrative—believe that when trying to maintain positive interpersonal relations it is as important to use decision-making procedures that will be regarded as fair (procedural justice) as it is to allocate outcomes in ways which will be regarded as fair (distributive justice). Decision makers' definitions of procedural justice are also examined.     

Selection Fairness and Outcomes: A field study of interactive effects on applicant reactions

Despite the vast amount of applicant reactions studies, few have examined combined effects of selection outcomes with perceived procedural and distributive fairness on both personal and organizational reactions. Further, most have been conducted in laboratory settings, limiting external validity. The present study examined these effects with a longitudinal design, measuring actual applicants' well‐being and organizational attractiveness preinterview and postoutcome. As expected, several interactions between outcomes and fairness were found. Applicants who were hired reported both highest well‐being and organizational attractiveness when they perceived the outcome as fair. In contrast, applicants who were rejected reported highest well‐being when they thought the outcome was unfair. Selection outcome and procedural fairness interacted for organizational attractiveness, with higher procedural fairness leading to higher attractiveness for rejected applicants.     

Do procedures really matter when rewards are more important? A Pakistani perspective on the effects of distributive and procedural justice on employee behaviors

Introduction

Researchers agree that procedural justice and distributive justice interact so that high procedural fairness reduces the negative consequences of distributive unfairness.

同事公正氛围：构念、测量、效能与展望

以往对公正氛围的探讨主要集中于源自权威的公正氛围上,而对来自同事的公正氛围关注较少。同事公正氛围是指团队成员对团队内同事之间相互对待公正性的共同知觉。本文首先对比总结界定了同事公正氛围的概念,明晰了其结构维度与测量工具,然后着重梳理评价了同事公正氛围的影响效能。未来研究应致力于：加强探讨同事公正氛围的前因变量,探讨同事公正氛围影响效能的内在机制和边界条件,运用纵向设计研究同事公正氛围的形成机制及影响效能,以及探索同事公正氛围研究的本土化。     

Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: motivated reasoning, group differentiation, or anger?

When people have strong moral convictions about outcomes, their judgments of both outcome and procedural fairness become driven more by whether outcomes support or oppose their moral mandates than by whether procedures are proper or improper (the moral mandate effect). Two studies tested 3 explanations for the moral mandate effect. In particular, people with moral mandates may (a) have a greater motivation to seek out procedural flaws when outcomes fail to support their moral point of view (the motivated reasoning hypothesis), (b) be influenced by in-group distributive biases as a result of identifying with parties that share rather than oppose their moral point of view (the group differentiation hypothesis), or (c) react with anger when outcomes are inconsistent with their moral point of view, which, in turn, colors perceptions of both outcomes and procedures (the anger hypothesis). Results support the anger hypothesis.     

Procedural and interpersonal fairness moderate the relationship between outcome fairness and acceptance of merit pay

An organizational field study (N = 257) investigated employees' acceptance of a new merit pay system as involving an assessment of whether merit pay can make their earnings more fair, compared to their earnings in the current, seniority-based pay system. We expected that improvement of unfair earnings, and consequently acceptance of merit pay, is considered likely when existing procedures that produce these earnings are unfair, because merit pay improves such procedures. We also expected improvement of unfair earnings, and increased merit pay acceptance, to be likely when employees anticipate fair performance evaluation in a new system, as indicated by fair interpersonal treatment by their supervisor. Results showed that procedural and interpersonal fairness in the existing pay system indeed moderated the relationship between fairness of current outcomes and merit pay acceptance as predicted. Implications for the introduction of merit pay in organizations and for our understanding of the different roles of procedural and interpersonal fairness in outcome evaluations are discussed.     

Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face: A Justice Perspective on Damaging an Alma Mater's Reputational Ranking

Although economic self-interest and self-enhancement theory predict that graduates will maximize their alma maters' reputational rankings, anecdotal evidence indicates that some graduates denigrate their alma maters' reputations when surveyed by the external media. Using organizational justice theories to motivate our hypotheses, we conducted a longitudinal investigation of 161 graduates from one university and predicted their intentions to badmouth their school to the external media. Results suggest that, controlling for perceptions of school quality, graduates used badmouthing to "punish" their alma maters when they perceived the fairness of job-search processes and outcomes to be low. Moreover, the relationship between justice and badmouthing was interactive, such that procedural justice mattered most when distributive justice was low, highlighting the role of career offices in universities' reputational rankings.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Nonlinear and Nonmonotonic Effects of Outcome on Procedural and Distributive Fairness Judgments1

It has generally been assumed that increases in the concrete outcomes of a procedure will result in judgments of greater procedural and distributive fairness, but research on this topic has been inconsistent. Using a classic procedural justice paradigm (Walker, LaTour, Lind, &. Thibaut, 1974), the experiment tested the effects of four levels of outcome. Forty-eight male and female undergraduates were led to believe that their team had been wrongfully charged with cheating in a business simulation game. An adversary adjudication was held, purportedly to resolve the charge. The outcome of the adjudication was confiscation of all, two thirds, one third, or none of the subject's monetary winnings from the game. Both procedural and distributive fairness measures showed dear nonlinear outcome effects. The relationship between outcomes and both fairness measures showed some evidence of being nonmonotonic as well: A two-thirds loss resulted in less favorable reactions than did a total loss. Ratings on other scales suggest that the nonlinear effects are due to beliefs that the judge did not fully consider the evidence in the two-thirds loss and one-third loss conditions. The discussion focuses on the theoretical implications of the findings for procedural justice and social exchange processes and the practical implications for conflict resolution procedure.     

Fairness,Self‐Interest,and Cooperation in a Real‐Life Conflict1

Effects of procedural fairness and self‐interest on cooperation vs. hardness in an urban planning conflict were examined in a questionnaire study. The self‐interest perspective posits that people seek to maximize their outcomes and, therefore, cooperate only when they can gain advantages or avoid disadvantages by doing so, while fairness models of cooperation view cooperative actions as based mainly on justice motives. The data give strong support for the fairness hypothesis, showing that self‐interest accounts only for hard strategies, whereas justice motives explain a considerable part of cooperation. The impact of the results on further research on social conflicts and their settlement, as well as the elaboration of models of fairness in the social psychology of conflicts are discussed.     

Decision Frame,Procedural Justice,and Survivors′ Reactions to Job Layoffs

Behavioral decision theory suggests that the perceived favorability of outcomes depends on how they are framed. Recent research in the justice literature suggests that perceived outcome favorability and procedural fairness interactively combine to influence employees′ reactions to a resource allocation decision. The present study tested a hypothesis derived from the integration of these two literatures: that decision frame-by affecting perceived outcome favorability-would interact with procedural fairness to influence individuals′ reactions to the decision. All participants were layoff survivors; the primary dependent variable was their trust in and support for the organization subsequent to the layoff. Through a framing manipulation, half evaluated the criteria that the organization used to keep certain employees rather than others (Keep condition), whereas the other half judged the criteria that the organization used to dismiss certain employees rather than others (Dismiss condition). Survivors also evaluated the procedural fairness of the layoff. As predicted, decision frame and procedural fairness interacted to influence survivors′ trust in and support for the organization. When procedural fairness was low, survivors reacted more favorably in the positive frame (Keep) than in the negative frame (Dismiss) condition. When procedural fairness was high, however, decision frame had no effect on survivors′ reactions. Possible explanations of the findings, as well as their theoretical and practical implications, are discussed.