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.     

The Effect of Organizational Justice on Contextual Performance,Counterproductive Work Behaviors,and Task Performance: Investigating the moderating role of ability‐based emotional intelligence

This study tested the direct effects of three dimensions of organizational justice – distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice – on contextual performance, counterproductive work behaviors, and task performance. The study also examined the moderating effects of an ability measure of emotional intelligence (EI) on the justice–performance relationship. Based on the data from 211 employees across nine organizations from the private and public sectors in a developing country in the Caribbean, the results revealed that all three justice dimensions had significant effects on task performance, contextual performance, and counterproductive work behaviors in the expected direction. Composite EI and its four subdimensions (appraisal and expression of emotion in the self, appraisal and recognition of emotion in others, regulation of emotion, and use of emotion) moderated the relationship between procedural justice and contextual performance, but failed to moderate other justice–performance relationships.     

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.     

Understanding the motivational effects of procedural and informational justice in feedback processes

Building upon traditional feedback models, this study examined the role of fair treatment in feedback contexts. Structural equation modelling using data from 236 undergraduate students highlighted perceived accuracy as a mediator in the credibility‐motivation relationship as well as a relationship between accuracy and perceptions of procedural and informational justice. In addition, the results showed that the motivating effects of feedback accuracy partially occurred through procedural justice perceptions. Tests of an alternative model also demonstrated the interactive effects of credibility and accuracy on justice perceptions. Overall, this study provides insight into the role of fairness in appraisal processes, as well as how fairness might enhance recipients' reactions to appraisal and, subsequently, the effectiveness of appraisal systems.     

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.     

Exchange fairness and employee performance: An examination of the relationship between organizational politics and procedural justice

Data obtained from a manufacturing firm and a newspaper firm in India were used to examine the relationship between organizational politics and procedural justice in three separate studies. Study 1 constructively replicated research on the distinctiveness of the two constructs. Confirmatory factor analyses in which data from the manufacturing firm served as the development sample and data from the newspaper firm served as the validation sample demonstrated the distinctiveness of organizational politics and procedural justice. Study 2 examined the antecedents of the two constructs using data from the manufacturing firm. Structural equation modeling (SEM) results revealed formalization and participation in decision making to be positively related to procedural justice but negatively related to organizational politics. Further, authority hierarchy and spatial distance were positively related to organizational politics but unrelated to procedural justice. Study 3 examined the consequences of the two constructs in terms of task and contextual performance using data from the newspaper firm. Results of SEM analysis revealed procedural justice but not organizational politics to be related to task performance and the contextual performance dimensions of interpersonal facilitation and job dedication.     

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.     

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.     

Enhancing Procedural Justice in Local Government Budget and Tax Decision Making

Two studies examined criteria for procedural justice in the related contexts of local government budgeting (Study 1) and taxation (Study 2). Questionnaire data were gathered from 272 municipal police chiefs in Study 1 and 81 municipal property owners in Study 2, Regression analysis indicated that ethicality. accuracy, and bias suppression were signiticant ( p < 0.05) predictors of procedural justice in both studies. Other significant predictors of procedural justice in Study I were correctability and justification. However. the relationship between justification and procedural justice in Study I was negative. which is contrary to theory. The results suggest strategies that local government officials can use to enhance the perceived fairness of budget and tax decision-making procedures.     

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.     

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.     

Influence of performance evaluation rating segmentation on motivation and fairness perceptions.

This study investigated the impact of rating segmentation (i.e., the number of alternative appraisal categories available for rating employee performance) on motivation and perceptions of fairness. Participants were 305 student volunteers who performed a catalog search task. A 2 x 4 factorial design with 2 performance rating systems-low segmentation (3 categories) and moderate segmentation (5 categories)--and 4 performance levels was used. Overall, the results indicated that the 5-category system resulted in higher self-efficacy regarding participants' ability to reach the next higher rating category. higher goals for rating improvement, and higher rating improvements than the 3-category system. The effects of rating system and performance rating on rating improvement were partially mediated by self-efficacy and personal goals. The rating system and the performance rating affected perceptions of distributive and procedural justice.     

Perceived Fairness of Promotion Procedures: Identification of Justice Rules and Consequences for Job Attitudes

Two studies were concerned with the perceived fairness of the promotion procedures adopted by a police organization. The first study used Leventhal's (1980) theory of procedural justice to analyse the reasons given by unsuccessful candidates for their appeals against the decision. A content analysis revealed that the rules of ‘consistency and accuracy’ accounted for 81.8% of all the reasons stated. The second study applied the social cognitive theory (Bandura 1989a; 1989b) to examining the effect of perceived procedural fairness on unsuccessful candidates' self-efficacy and job attitudes related to police work. Results show that ‘procedural fairness’ was predictive of ‘self-efficacy and procedural satisfaction’, both of which in turn predicted officers' organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Theoretical implications of the studies for procedural justice and social cognitive theory were discussed.     

Survivor reactions to reorganization: antecedents and consequences of procedural,interpersonal, and informational justice

This study tested a model of survivor reactions to reorganization, which incorporated multiple predictors and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. The 3 justice types had different correlates: all 4 antecedents (employee input, victim support, implementation, and communication quality) predicted interpersonal fairness, implementation and communication quality were associated with informational fairness, and employee input was the sole predictor of procedural justice. Procedural justice was strongly related to all 4 outcome variables, and interpersonal and informational justice added unique variance to the prediction of trust in management. The reorganization effort was still predictive of employee outcomes, although primarily through procedural justice approximately I year after its completion.     

Contextual and Cognitive Determinants of Procedural Justice Perceptions in Promotion Barriers for Women

The relationships between procedural justice in promotion decisions for women and contextual factors deemed as contributing to glass ceilings were examined. The contextual factors examined were a lack of female role models, limited networking opportunities for women, gender segregation, and formal career ladders. It was found that gender schema is a moderator between procedural justice and the perceived number of female role models and between procedural justice and the perception of formal career ladders. Although gender schema was not a moderator in the relationship between procedural justice and gender segregation, nor in the relationship between procedural justice and networking opportunities for women, a significant main effect was found. These results are consistent with the notion that organizational justice perceptions are products of individual cognitive processes, which develop in response to cultural expectations.     

What determines people’s fairness judgments? Identification and outcomes influence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty

When the procedures people experience are uncertain, factors unrelated to principles of procedural justice may nevertheless shape procedural justice judgments. This paper investigates two of these factors: an individual’s level of social identification with the group enacting the procedures and the outcomes associated with the procedure. It was predicted and found that high (vs. low) levels of identification promote relatively positive perceptions of procedural justice. It was also predicted and found that desirable (vs. undesirable) outcomes promote relatively positive perceptions of procedural justice. These effects only emerged in the absence of direct information indicating whether procedures were (un)fair. By showing an influence of identification and outcomes on procedural justice judgments under conditions of informational uncertainty, these studies provide important experimental evidence that integrates and extends previous research on justice, identity, and uncertainty to understand subjective evaluations of process fairness.     

The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects

Various theories have been shown to account for the effects of procedural fairness on people’s attitudes and behaviors. We propose that a logical next step for organizational justice researchers is to delineate not whether, but rather when certain explanations are likely to account for people’s reactions to procedural fairness information. Accordingly, the present research tested the hypothesis that social psychological explanations would be particularly applicable to people high in interdependent self-construal. As predicted, the results of three studies showed that interdependent self-construal (ISC) moderated the relationship between procedural fairness and a variety of dependent variables (cooperation, positive affect, and desire for future interaction with the other party). In different types of interpersonal encounters (social dilemmas, reward allocations, and negotiations), procedural fairness had more of an influence on participants’ reactions among those high rather than low in ISC. Theoretical implications are discussed.     

公正的启发理论述评

组织公正感包括分配公正、程序公正、互动公正等重要的组成要素。尽管这些公正感的构成要素有不同的内涵和影响因素,然而在许多情况下,这些要素之间有较高的一致性。与过去注重这些要素的差异性相反,Lind看到了这些公正感要素之间的一致性,提出了试图整合这些一致性的公正理论：公正的启发理论。该文比较全面地介绍了公正的启发理论的含义,如何启发等核心概念,并对启发理论存在的问题进行了分析,指出了启发理论研究的方向。     

Procedural injustice at work,justice sensitivity,job satisfaction and psychosomatic well‐being

In a field study with 295 factory employees, three hypotheses were tested: (1) Procedural injustice at work is correlated negatively with job satisfaction and psychosomatic well‐being. (2) The perception of procedural injustice depends on the person's chronic justice sensitivity. (3) Justice sensitivity moderates the correlation of procedural injustice with satisfaction and well‐being, the correlation becoming larger with increasing justice sensitivity. Procedural injustice was defined as the discrepancy between desired (ought) and perceived (is) procedures. Justice sensitivity and procedural fairness according to Leventhal's criteria (consistency, nonpartiality, accuracy, correctability, representativeness) and one additional criterion (open information) were measured via questionnaire. Job satisfaction, number of sick days during the last six months and number of days a person felt sick at work during the last six months served as indicators of psychosomatic well‐being. The first and second hypotheses were supported by the data. Partial support was also obtained for the third hypothesis: Justice sensitivity moderated the correlation of procedural unfairness with (a) the number of days the person felt sick at work and (b) the sum of this variable with the number of sick days. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.