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.     

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.     

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.     

Justice Perceptions as Predictors of Customer Satisfaction: The Impact of Distributive,Procedural, and Interactional Justice1

This article attempts to extend prior research by testing the effects of justice components (distributive, procedural, and interactional) on customer satisfaction beyond the expectancy disconfirmation paradigm. To this end, two separate field survey studies were conducted. A total of 568 customers were surveyed in 38 hotels and 40 restaurants. The results showed that distributive justice was critical in predicting customer satisfaction, while the influence of procedural and interactional justice was secondary. Justice concepts were also robust against the simultaneous inclusion of disconfirmation and performance in the satisfaction equation. The article concludes with theoretical and managerial implications, as well as opportunities for future research.     

Organizational justice and Black applicants' reactions to affirmative action

Using organizational justice as a guiding framework, the authors studied perceptions of affirmative action programs by presumed beneficiaries. Three conceptual issues were addressed: (a) the content of different affirmative action plans; (b) the 3-way interaction among distributive, procedural, and interactional justice; and (c) the distinction between outcome favorability and distributive justice. These ideas were tested with a sample of Black engineering students who responded to 1 of 6 plans. Participants distinguished among the various plans, with some policies being viewed as more fair than others. In addition, a 3-way interaction among the 3 types of organizational justice was observed. Specifically, the 2-way interaction between distributive and interactional fairness was only significant when procedural justice was low. Implications for organizational justice and for the design of affirmative action programs are discussed.     

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 Relationship Between Perceptions of Fairness and Voluntary Turnover Among Retail Employees1

Research on the relationship between perceived fairness and employee turnover has tended to focus on turnover intentions rather than behavior, and the few studies that have assessed actual turnover have reported inconsistent results. In the present study, we examined the interactive effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on turnover among 159 retail employees. Results showed that the effect of distributive justice on turnover was stronger when interactional justice was perceived as low rather than high. Our findings also suggest that disproportionate turnover group base rates favoring stayers over leavers can affect results of justice turnover research.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

Beyond individual justice facets: How (Mis)alignment between justice climates affects customer satisfaction through frontline customer extra-role service behavior

ABSTRACT

This study examines the combined effect of organizational justice facets on store-level customer extra-role service behavior, and subsequently on customer satisfaction. Hypotheses were tested on a sample of 1,951 employees in 121 business units from four countries, and on 55,731 customers of an international retailer. The results of polynomial regression and response surface analysis revealed that unit customer service performance and customer satisfaction are higher when justice facets are aligned at high levels, compared to when they are aligned at low levels. Moreover, we found evidence that the consequences of misalignment between justice facets are asymmetrical. Unit outcomes were higher when distributive justice (DJ) and procedural justice (PJ) climates were both higher than the interpersonal justice climate, compared to when the inverse was true. Conversely, unit outcomes increased when informational justice (INF-J) climate was higher than DJ and PJ climates, compared to when DJ and PJ climates were higher than INF-J climates. The observed effects of misalignment between justice facets were non-linear, as complex curvilinear relationships were moderator-dependent. Customer satisfaction was higher in stores with higher team customer service behavior, and team service behavior was found to be a significant conduit by which justice facets (mis)alignment influence customer satisfaction.     

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.

Procedural and Distributive Justice Beliefs for Self and Others: Multilevel Associations with Life Satisfaction and Self-Rated Health

Personal happiness and well-being are associated with a dispositional tendency to believe in the existence of justice. In addition, research suggests that links between justice beliefs and well-being are best revealed when utilizing distinctions between a belief in justice for one’s self versus others, and also a belief in procedural versus distributive justice. Using multilevel modeling, we examined whether individual-level links to personal well-being are moderated by higher-order (county-level) justice climates. Michigan (United States) residents (N = 497) were recruited through a statewide survey to complete measures of procedural and distributive justice beliefs for self and others, life satisfaction, and self-rated health. Individual-level beliefs in justice for both self and for others were more strongly associated with life satisfaction and health in climates where beliefs about justice for others were robust. In addition, an individual-level belief in distributive justice was more strongly linked to self-rated health in high distributive justice climates, and in low procedural justice climates. Taken together, these cross-level interactions suggest that higher-order justice climates may alter relationships between individual-level justice beliefs and personal well-being. We discuss implications for justice theory and directions for continued research on well-being and happiness.     

When Leaders Are Seen as Transformational: The Effects of Organizational Justice1

In 2 studies, we attempted to make a first step toward integrating the literature on transformational leadership and organizational justice. We examined the extent to which justice affects perceptions of transformational leadership. We predicted that especially interactional justice should have strong effects. Study 1 was a vignette study (N = 100) in which distributive, procedural, and interactional justice were manipulated orthogonally. As expected, only interactional justice affected transformational leadership perceptions. Study 2 replicated these results in an organizational field study (N = 257). Distributive and procedural justice affected perceptions of transformational leadership, but when interactional justice was entered in the regression equation, their effects disappeared. Implications for integrating the literature on transformational leadership and organizational justice 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。     

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.     

Shared perceptions of perceived justice as a predictor of externally rated departmental level academic performance

The purpose of this study was to investigate if shared perceptions of organizational justice affect externally rated group‐level performance. Previous studies did not consider distributive justice, nor did they control for the possible confounding effects of baseline performance. The present study relates shared perceptions of procedural, interactional, and distributive justice to externally rated departmental level academic performance and takes previous performance into account. We found support for the distributive justice–performance link, partial support for the procedural justice‐performance link, but contrary to our expectations interactional justice was unrelated to performance. All in all, the results seem to support the call for a re‐examination of the role of distributive justice in organizational processes.     

Differences between Caucasian and Hispanic undergraduates in emphasis on distributive, procedural, and interactional justice

Most theories of justice focus on individual-level approaches; few examine the role of contextual factors such as culture. To fill this gap in the literature, this study examined the differences between Caucasian and Hispanic undergraduates (n = 120 and 58, respectively) in terms of their emphasis on distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Analyses indicated that Hispanic students were more likely to use interactional justice than Caucasian respondents, but the groups did not differ in their likelihood of using distributive or procedural 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.