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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The Effects of Leader Fairness and Pay Outcomes on Superior/Subordinate Relations1

This study assessed the effects of procedurally fair leadership and payment outcomes on subordinate reactions to the supervisor in a pay-for-performance task. Procedurally fair leadership was operationalized by the extent to which supervisors enacted three specific behaviors: facilitation of voice, accuracy, and adherence to formal policies and procedures. The payment outcomes were high and low cash payments for performance evaluated as above or below average. Subordinate reactions to these treatments focused on perceptions of supervisory fairness (both procedural and distributive) and the subordinate's relationship with his or her supervisor (in terms of both satisfaction and commitment). Procedurally fair leadership showed a main effect on subordinate perceptions of leader fairness and on their relationship with the leader. No other effects were noted. 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.     

Who Delivers Justice? Source Perceptions of Procedural Fairness1

Tyler and Bies (1990) argue that how leaders enact and apply formal procedures can affect perceptions of procedural fairness as much as the formal procedures themselves. This study examined directly the extent to which workers see either formal policies and procedures or their supervisors as the source most responsible for the procedural fairness they receive in their performance evaluations. Group differences in these source perceptions between exempt and nonexempt workers were also explored. Results indicate that workers attribute the responsibility for procedural fairness jointly and independently to both their organization's formal policies and procedures and to their supervisors. Results at the group level of analysis indicate that nonexempt workers perceive formal policies and procedures to be more responsible for procedural fairness than do exempt workers. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

A policy‐modeling approach to examining fairness judgments in organizational acquisitions

Organizational acquisitions may be characterized by the degree of friendliness or hostility as well as the degree of autonomy or absorption of the organizations following the merger. This study examined judgments of fairness across four types of organizational acquisitions. Students read fictitious newspaper accounts of a university acquisition and rated their expectations and perceptions of fairness about possible changes. Results indicated that in an acquisition, both the procedures used and the outcomes provided influenced how fair the acquisition was perceived. As predicted, the relative importance of procedures and outcomes in overall perceptions of fairness shifted depending on the context of the acquisition. As the desirability of the acquisition increased, individuals placed greater importance on the procedural elements. In a friendly and low integration acquisition, the processes and outcomes became equally important. Individuals faced with a high integration acquisition expected more unfair changes and fewer fair changes to occur. Furthermore, these results highlight the importance expectations play in perceptions of fairness. The type of acquisition will influence expectations for fair treatment. Under less desirable conditions (hostile and high‐integration mergers), organizations should take steps early in the process to manage fairness perceptions. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: an examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions

Most organizational justice research takes a cross-sectional approach to examining the relationship between perceived fairness and individuals' attitudes. This study examines the effect of procedural and distributive justice over time. It is suggested that individuals acquire more information and experience with procedures and outcomes over time. These changes in information and experience affect the influence of procedural and distributive justice on organizational attitudes. Faculty perceptions of tenure and promotion decisions were assessed 3 times (preallocation, short-term postallocation, long-term postallocation) over a 2-year period. Results generally supported the hypotheses. Procedural justice was most influential prior to and soon after outcome decisions were made. Distributive justice was most influential 1 year later.     

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.     

Procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and judgments of an authority's responsibility

Fairness theory (R. Folger & R. Cropanzano, 1998, 2001) postulates that, particularly in the face of unfavorable outcomes, employees judge an organizational authority to be more responsible for their outcomes when the authority exhibits lower procedural fairness. Three studies lent empirical support to this notion. Furthermore, 2 of the studies showed that attributions of responsibility to the authority mediated the relationship between the authority's procedural fairness and employees' reactions to unfavorable outcomes. The findings (a) provide support for a key assumption of fairness theory, (b) help to account for the pervasive interactive effect of procedural fairness and outcome favorability on employees' attitudes and behaviors, and (c) contribute to an emerging trend in justice research concerned with how people use procedural fairness information to make attributions of responsibility for their outcomes. Practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research also are discussed.     

Procedural Perceptions and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court

This paper examines public support toward the U.S. Supreme Court. Although previous scholars have rightly focused on policy outcomes in explaining public attitudes toward the Court, outcome‐based theories are unable to explain why support for the Court remains high despite public disagreement with Court decisions. Some scholars argue the low visibility of the Court shields it from public scrutiny. The exposure explanation, however, is inconsistent with the empirical finding that to know the Court is to love it. This paper reconciles these differences by showing how media coverage of the Court can influence procedural perceptions and subsequent support for the Court. Expanding on recent studies examining media coverage of the Court and perceptions of fairness, this study examines how procedural perceptions mediate support for the Court. An experimental design shows that the media's portrayal of procedural information as either fair or unfair influences public evaluations of procedural fairness and subsequently support for the Court as an institution and the individual justices serving on the Court's bench.     

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.     

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.     

Procedural justice in the context of civil commitment: an analogue study

Procedural justice theory posits that the process by which disputes are resolved influences perceptions of fairness and satisfaction with outcomes, even if the outcomes are unfavorable. Within the context of civil commitment, Tyler (1992) has suggested that enhancing respondents' perceptions of procedural justice (i.e., participation, dignity, and trust) during commitment proceedings might facilitate accommodation to an adverse judicial determination (i.e., commitment) and subsequently enhance therapeutic outcomes. The study reported here used videotapes of mock commitment hearings to examine whether patients committed for involuntary treatment are sensitive to procedural justice manipulations. Results suggest that patients are sensitive to procedural justice manipulations and, further, that such manipulations are likely to influence the patients' attitude toward psychiatric care. These findings suggest that the development of strategies to enhance patients' perceptions of procedural justice in commitment hearings may indeed have positive therapeutic implications and warrants further investigation.     

Investigating the Moderating Role of Cultural Practices on the Effect of Selection Fairness Perceptions

Utilizing a sample of applicants to positions in a global corporation, we examined whether cultural practices moderate the effect of selection fairness perceptions on organizational attractiveness and job choice. Positive relationships were anticipated between fairness perceptions and outcomes, and performance orientation and uncertainty avoidance cultural practices were hypothesized to moderate the effects of structural and information sharing perceptions, respectively. Structural fairness perceptions were positively associated with both outcomes, but information‐sharing perceptions were significantly related only to organizational attractiveness. National variability in the effect of selection fairness perceptions was observed only for the effect of structural perceptions on organizational attractiveness. Performance orientation moderated this effect such that the strongest relationship was seen among applicants from more performance‐oriented countries.