Training Appraisees to Participate in Appraisal: Effects on Appraisers and Appraisees

This study examined the role of behavior modeling training (BMT) in enhancing appraisee participation during a performance appraisal discussion. In addition, the study examined the effects of enhanced participation on appraisee and appraiser perceptions toward several appraisal outcome variables; in particular, the fairness and accuracy of performance appraisal were of interest. The experimental design was a 2 × 3 completely crossed factorial design consisting of two levels of training (behavior modeling vs. lecture/discussion) and three levels of bogus evaluation feedback (low, neutral, and high). A series of multivariate and univariate comparisons were used to test the hypothesized outcomes. The findings suggest that appraisers exposed to the BMT group perceived appraisees as more proactive and better performers and, in addition, reported liking the appraisees more, and perceiving the appraisal process as more fair. The study also found support for the egocentric bias in perceived outcome fairness: appraisees in both training conditions who received a high evaluation perceived the appraisal evaluation as more fair than appraisees who received a low evaluation. In addition, the study found that favorable evaluations were also perceived as being more accurate. The results of the study are discussed in terms of procedural justice theory and related research examining the role of performance feedback on both the appraisee and the appraiser. Suggestions for future research in the areas of behavior modeling, voice-giving (high-input) procedures, and procedural justice 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.     

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.     

Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation

Although organizational justice scholars often describe unfairness as an emotionally laden experience, the role of emotion is underresearched. In a study of individuals who experienced being laid off (N = 173), the authors found that outcome favorability interacts with both procedural and interactional justice to predict participants' emotions. The pattern of interaction differed for inward-focused (i.e., shame and guilt) and outward-focused (i.e., anger and hostility) negative emotions. Attributions of blame mediated the relationship between fairness perceptions and outward-focused negative emotion. Outward-focused emotion mediated the relationship between fairness perceptions and retaliation.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

"All in a day's work": how follower individual differences and justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions and behavior

The authors draw on theories of social exchange and prosocial behavior to explain how employee perceptions of procedural justice and individual differences in reciprocation wariness, empathic concern, and perspective taking function jointly as determinants of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) role definitions and behavior. As hypothesized, empirical findings from a field study show both direct and interactive effects of procedural justice perceptions and individual differences on OCB role definition. In turn, OCB role definitions not only predict OCB directly but also moderate the effects of procedural justice perceptions on OCB. The authors explore the implications of these findings for practice as well as research.     

Distributive Justice,Procedural Justice,Affective Commitment,and Turnover Intention: A Mediation–Moderation Framework1

This study addressed the unexamined issue of how and when distributive justice and procedural justice interact to predict turnover intention using a mediation–moderation framework. Survey data from 168 employees showed that affective commitment mediated the relationship between distributive justice and turnover intention, and this mediated effect varied across levels of supervisory procedural justice. Specifically, at high levels of procedural justice, affective commitment partially mediated the distributive justice–turnover intention link; at low levels of procedural justice, affective commitment fully mediated this link. The findings draw attention to the (a) importance of affective commitment in the absence of distributive and procedural fairness and (b) role of supervisory procedural justice in attenuating the adverse effects of low affective commitment on turnover intention.     

Do Procedural Justice Perceptions in a Selection Testing Context Predict Applicant Attraction and Intention Toward the Organization?

This study examines the effects of procedural justice perceptions on outcomes in an actual selection context with applicants taking a general mental ability test to gain employment as utility meter readers. Applicant attraction and intention related to the organization were measured at 3 time periods. This allowed us to control for initial levels of outcome variables and the pass-fail result when assessing procedural justice effects. Procedural justice perceptions modestly predicted organizational attractiveness and intention prior to pass-fail feedback. However, the procedural justice effects on these outcomes were diminished after controlling for the pass-fail result. Either changes in R ² or regression coefficients associated with procedural justice perceptions failed to achieve significance for all outcomes. We discuss the implications of these findings for procedural justice research and for employment managers.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Justice Orientation as a Moderator of the Framing Effect on Procedural Justice Perception

Justice orientation is a justice-relevant personality trait, which is referred to as the tendency to attend to fairness issues and to internalize justice as a moral virtue. This study examined the moderating role of justice orientation in the relationship between justice perception and response to a decision problem. The authors manipulated procedural justice and the outcome valence of the decision frame within a vignette, and measured justice orientation of 174 Japanese participants. As hypothesized, the results indicated an interaction between procedural justice and framing manipulation, which was moderated by individual differences in justice orientation. In negative framing, justice effects were larger for individuals with high rather than low justice orientation. The results are explained from a social justice perspective, and the contributions and limitations of this study are also discussed with respect to our sample and framing manipulation.     

Justice in teams: The activation and role of sensemaking in the emergence of justice climates

Justice climates are considered to be an emergent phenomenon, which originates in the cognition, affect and behaviors of individuals, but is amplified by their interactions and manifests itself as a collective construct (see Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). However, researchers have given little attention to the role of social interaction in the convergence of member justice perceptions in teams. Using conversational data from 372 students working in a team business simulation with two levels each of procedural treatment and outcome favorability, this study examines how treatment fairness arouses sensemaking in teams and the features of such sensemaking processes that give rise to shared justice perceptions. The results highlight an interactive effect of outcomes and procedures on team sensemaking, which is shown to influence justice climate strength. The results also provide insight into the effects of discussion content, intensity and duration on the emergence of justice climates.     

Justice as a dynamic construct: effects of individual trajectories on distal work outcomes

Despite an amassing organizational justice literature, few studies have directly addressed the temporal patterning of justice judgments and the effects that changes in these perceptions have on important work outcomes. Drawing from Gestalt characteristics theory (Ariely & Carmon, 2000, 2003), we examine the concept of justice trajectories (i.e., levels and trends of individual fairness perceptions over time) and offer empirical evidence to highlight the value of considering fairness within a dynamic context. Participants included 523 working adults who completed surveys about their work experiences on 4 occasions over the course of 1 year. Results indicate that justice trends explained additional variance in distal work outcomes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions) after controlling for end-state levels of justice, demonstrating the cumulative effects of justice over time. Findings also reveal that change in procedural justice perceptions affected distal work outcomes more strongly than any other justice dimension. Implications for theory and future investigations of justice as a dynamic construct are discussed.     

Fairness Perceptions in Web‐based Selection: Impact on applicants’ pursuit intentions,recommendation intentions,and intentions to reapply

This study examines the Gilliland model of applicants’ reactions to selection procedures in a Web‐based context, revealing new theoretical and empirical insights. We extend existing research by further considering a reflective first‐order formative second‐order model consisting of three second‐order justice factors of formal characteristics, explanation, and interpersonal treatment modeled by 11 formative indicators representing the procedural justice rules. Partial least squares path modeling analysis revealed that formal characteristics and interpersonal treatment are positively related to perceptions of process fairness in Web‐based selection. Most salient procedural justice rules revealed were treatment of the applicants, opportunity to perform, propriety of questions, and reconsideration opportunity. Furthermore, process fairness, which was positively related to applicants’ reactions, fully mediated the relationship between justice factors and applicants’ reactions.