DIFFERENT WRONGS,DIFFERENT REMEDIES? REACTIONS TO ORGANIZATIONAL REMEDIES AFTER PROCEDURAL AND INTERACTIONAL INJUSTICE

To alleviate the negative effects of workplace unfairness and resulting conflict, organizations can take remedial action to atone for a perceived injustice. We argue that the effectiveness of organizational remedies may depend on the match between type of injustice perceived and type of remedy offered. Specifically, based on the multiple needs model of justice ( Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001 ), we expect procedural injustice to be particularly associated with preference for instrumental remedies that address the need for control. On the other hand, interactional injustice should be particularly associated with preference for punitive remedies that address the need for meaning. Confirming this hypothesis, a field study involving recently terminated employees found that procedural injustice was positively associated with preference for an instrumental remedy (monetary compensation) and interactional injustice was positively associated with preference for a punitive remedy (disciplinary action against those involved in the termination). Further supporting the hypothesis, a laboratory experiment manipulating the unfairness of performance feedback found greater preference for an instrumental remedy relative to a punitive remedy following a procedural injustice than following an interactional injustice. In discussing these results, we present a taxonomy of organizational remedies as they relate to the multiple needs model of justice. Practical implications are discussed.     

Considering the Identity of Minority Adults

In this article the developmental stages of the Minority Identity Development Model are described. The author also suggests its use in understanding minority client attitudes, values, and behavior.     

Co-construction and performancescapes

Although prior literature has emphasized marketplace participants' co-construction mostly in terms of symbolic, oral, or emotional aspects of a consumption experience, there has not been much attention paid to potential concerns around success, failure, strategies, risk, dependence, and competition involved. This article, by building on the existing body of research, introduces the notion of performancescapes to better understand these issues as they relate to participant performances in the co-construction of marketplace experiences. Performances have the character of being an accomplishment involving an interactive quality and an element of risk. Accordingly, highlighting competencies and effectiveness rather than just the meaning enables us to concentrate on issues of success, failure, and risk. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to examine the marketer side of marketplace performances, but the customer side is generally neglected or assumed to be more passive. In this paper, we explore some of the ways through which service providers and clients participate in a marketplace stage as a performancescape in order to have a successful co-constructed performance. We further maintain that the performative competencies of consumers can be as significant as that of marketers or service providers. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.