Management Organizational Justice
by
Christine Jackson
  • LAST REVIEWED: 20 October 2016
  • LAST MODIFIED: 28 April 2014
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199846740-0070

Introduction

Organizational justice is defined as people’s perceptions of fairness in organizations. The focus of much organizational justice research has been on employees’ perceptions of fairness as opposed to norms regarding how people ought to be treated. Perceived fairness is typically in reference to employees’ perception of how fairly they themselves have been treated by the organization or an authority figure. More recently, researchers have begun to examine how the treatment of third parties, such as coworkers or team members, impacts justice perceptions and reactions to justice.

General Overviews

A number of reviews have been conducted in the organizational justice literature. Greenberg 1987 offers a definition for organizational justice. Cropanzano, et al. 2001 (also cited under Major Theories and Models) provides a broad review of organizational justice literature that is organized around three questions: (1) How do people form perceptions of organizational justice? (2) Why do people care about organizational justice? and (3) What is organizational justice? Greenberg and Colquitt 2005 (also cited under Justice and Human Resource Management) provide a comprehensive overview of the organizational justice literature and identify key methodological issues to consider when studying organizational justice. Colquitt, et al. 2001 (also cited under Organizational Justice Types) and Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001 provide meta-analytic reviews that link organizational justice perceptions to a number of organizationally relevant attitudes and behaviors. Gilliland and colleagues (Gilliland, et al. 2011) have edited a series of books that provide theoretical advancements and suggestions regarding future research topics in emerging areas of organizational justice research. Their most recent volume looks at justice and ethics.

  • Cohen-Charash, Yochi, and Paul E. Spector. “The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86.2 (2001): 278–321.

    DOI: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2958Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Based on 190 studies, this meta-analytic review found that distributive, procedural, and interactional justice had differential relationships with organizational-relevant outcomes. The review called for additional research on antecedents of justice types and attention to causality in relation to justice types and their correlates.

    Find this resource:

    • Colquitt, Jason A., Donald E. Conlon, Michael J. Wesson, Christopher O. L. H. Porter, and K. Yee Ng. “Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86.3 (2001): 425–445.

      DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This meta-analysis of 183 organizational justice studies found that different types of justice (e.g., distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational) were distinct constructs that had overall and unique relationships with organizationally relevant attitudes and behaviors.

      Find this resource:

      • Cropanzano, Russell, Zinta S. Bryne, D. Ramona Bobocel, and Deborah E. Rupp. “Moral Virtues, Fairness Heuristics, Social Entities, and Other Denizens of Organizational Justice.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 58.2 (2001): 164–209.

        DOI: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1791Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

        Provides a broad review of the literature organized around three questions: How do people form perceptions of organizational justice? Why do people care about organizational justice? What is organizational justice? A multiple-needs framework is proposed that is composed of the Instrumental, relational, and moral virtue models of justice.

        Find this resource:

        • Gilliland, Stephen W., Dirk D. Steiner, Daniel P. Skarlicki, eds. Emerging Perspectives on Organizational Justice and Ethics. Research in Social Science Issues in Management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age, 2011.

          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

          This is the most recent of seven volumes edited by Gilliland and colleagues. These volumes provide theoretical insights and future research suggestions regarding emerging topics in organizational justice. Past volumes have focused on examining organizational justice from various perspectives including cultural, interdisciplinary, moral and social responsibility, and ethics issues, among others.

          Find this resource:

          • Greenberg, Jerald. “A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories.” Academy of Management Review 12.1 (1987): 9–22.

            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

            Provides a two-dimensional taxonomy of organizational justice theories. A reactive-proactive dichotomy is used to distinguish between theories that focus on seeking to redress injustice versus those striving to attain justice, while a process versus content framework distinguishes between theories that focus on the ends achieved in contrast to the means used to acquire those ends.

            Find this resource:

            • Greenberg, Jerald, and Jason A. Colquitt, eds. Handbook of Organizational Justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              This edited handbook is a compilation of chapters that provide a comprehensive review of the justice literature, including a detailed history broken down into time waves; an overview of major theories and empirical work; and discussions regarding the critical theoretical and methodological issues to consider.

              Find this resource:

              Journals

              Journals in the management and related fields that publish organizational justice research include Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Personnel Psychology, Organizational Science, Journal of Management, and Journal of Organizational Behavior. Each year, Thomson Reuters publishes a journal Impact Factor (IF) in their Journal Citation Reports (JCR), which is one way to assess the quality of a journal. This IF is also a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. Access to the JCR can be gained via the ISI Web of Knowledge website for each of the journals listed, as well as many other journals in various fields outside of management.

              Organizational Justice Types

              Scholars, including Colquitt, et al. 2001, have focused on four types of justice in the workplace. Distributive justice is concerned with the fairness of distributed outcomes. Procedural justice is concerned with the fairness of the decision-making process that leads to the outcomes. Interpersonal and informational justice, both of which fall under the umbrella of interactional justice, refer generally to the nature of the interpersonal treatment received from others, particularly authority figures such as supervisors. Meta-analytic results suggest that while these types of justice are moderately to highly correlated, they have different correlates and are empirically distinct from each other (see Colquitt, et al. 2001, also cited under General Overviews).

              • Colquitt, Jason A., Donald E. Conlon, Michael J. Wesson, Christopher O. L. H. Porter, and K. Yee Ng. 2001. “Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86.3 (2001): 425–445.

                DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                This is a quantitative summary of 183 organizational justice studies. Results indicate that the different types of organizational justice (e.g., distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) are moderately to highly correlated with each other yet have different correlates and contribute incremental variance-explained in fairness perceptions.

                Find this resource:

                Distributive Justice

                Distributive justice is concerned with the fairness of distributed outcomes including pay, promotions, and rewards. This term was first introduced by Homans 1961 and further developed by Adams 1965 (also cited under Content Models: Instrumental) with the introduction of equity theory. Both of these works identified equity as the governing allocation norm. Later Deutsch 1975 and Leventhal 1976 similarly argued that managers should consider their objectives when deciding on which allocation norm to apply and identified equality and need as alternative allocation norms when the objective is, respectively, to promote group harmony and personal welfare.

                • Adams, John S. “Inequity in Social Exchange.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 2. Edited by Leonard Berkowitz, 267–299. New York: Academic Press, 1965.

                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                  This work introduces equity theory, which proposes that inequity exists when an individual perceives that the ratio of his or her outcomes to inputs is not equal to the ratio of another. Perceptions of inequity create psychological tension, which motivates individuals to try to reduce inequity in various ways.

                  Find this resource:

                  • Deutsch, Morton. “Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used as the Basis for Distributive Justice?” Journal of Social Issues 31.3 (1975): 137–149.

                    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                    Argues that equity is not the only allocation norm used to determine fairness perceptions. Rather equality and need should be considered in allocation decisions, particularly when cooperation or personal welfare is a concern.

                    Find this resource:

                    • Homans, George C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, 1961.

                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                      Introduces the distributive justice construct and builds off of research on relative deprivation by arguing that distributive justice is a function of the ratio of profits to investments, with injustice occurring when an individual has a lower ratio of inputs to outcomes than a comparable person.

                      Find this resource:

                      • Leventhal, Gerald S. “The Distribution of Rewards and Resources in Groups and Organizations.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 9. Edited by Leonard Berkowitz and Elaine Walster, 91–131. New York: Academic Press, 1976.

                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                        Contends that other appropriate allocation norms besides equity should be considered when making allocation decisions, with equality and need norms being particularly important in promoting, respectively, social harmony and personal welfare.

                        Find this resource:

                        Procedural Justice

                        Procedural justice (PJ) is concerned with the fairness of the decision-making process that leads to allocation decisions. PJ was first introduced in Thibaut and Walker 1975, which identified process control and decision control as key requirements of fair procedures in the context of legal dispute resolutions. Greenberg and Folger 1983 similarly identified voice and choice (analogous to process control and decision control) as PJ criteria in the context of worker participation. Leventhal 1980 identified additional criteria for fair processes including consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicality. Lind and Tyler 1988 (also cited under Content Models: Relational/Group-Oriented) is a signature review piece on the PJ literature that introduces the self-interest and group-value models of justice. Brockner and Wiesenfeld 1996 provides a review of the heavily replicated distributive justice-procedural justice interaction, while Brockner 2010 provides a more recent review of the same interaction and discusses how the outcome favorability-fair processes interaction can take different empirical forms.

                        • Brockner, Joel. A Contemporary Look at Organizational Justice: Multiplying Insult Times Injury. New York: Routledge, 2010.

                          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                          This book argues that process fairness needs to be considered in conjunction with outcome favorability. In doing so, the different forms which the interaction between outcome favorability and process fairness can take are examined and theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

                          Find this resource:

                          • Brockner, Joel, and Batia M. Wiesenfeld. “An Integrative Framework for Explaining Reactions to Decisions: Interactive Effects of Outcomes and Procedures.” Psychological Bulletin 120.2 (1996): 189–208.

                            DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.189Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                            Reviews studies that have examined a procedural justice-distributive justice (outcome favorability) interaction effect. Concludes that “the effects of what you do depend on how you do it” (p. 206).

                            Find this resource:

                            • Greenberg, Jerald, and Robert Folger. “Procedural Justice, Participation, and the Fair Process Effect in Groups and Organizations.” In Basic Group Processes. Edited by Paul B. Paulus, 235–256. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983.

                              DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4612-5578-9Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                              Credited with introducing the management field to the procedural justice construct distinguishing between two forms of worker participation, voice and choice, which are similar to process control and decision control terms in Thibaut and Walker 1975.

                              Find this resource:

                              • Leventhal, Gerald S. “What Should Be Done with Equity Theory?” In Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. Edited by Kenneth J. Gergen, Martin S. Greenberg, and Richard H. Willis, 27–55. New York: Plenum, 1980.

                                DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                This work is best known for the identification of additional criteria or rules for fair procedures beyond process control and decision control—including consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicality.

                                Find this resource:

                                • Lind, E. Allan, and Tom R. Tyler. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum, 1988.

                                  DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                  Considered a signature review piece on procedural justice that introduces the “self-interest” (later termed Instrumental) and “group-value” (later termed relational) models, which seek to explain why individuals care about fairness issues.

                                  Find this resource:

                                  • Thibaut, John, and Laurens Walker. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1975.

                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                    Introduced the procedural justice construct in a legal dispute resolution context. Argues that the perceived fairness of decisions and that of decision-making procedures is distinct and that process control and decision control are key requirements for fair processes.

                                    Find this resource:

                                    Interactional Justice

                                    Interactional justice refers to the nature of the interpersonal treatment received from others, particularly authority figures such as supervisors. This type of justice was first introduced by Bies and Moag 1986, in which justification, trustfulness, respect, and propriety were identified as judgment criteria used to determine interactional justice perceptions. Greenberg 1993 later argued that interactional justice should be reconceptualized as interpersonal and informational justice, with respect and propriety facets representing interpersonal justice and justification and trustfulness facets representing informational justice. Colquitt 2001 (also cited under Justice Measurement) provides meta-analytic evidence to support the distinction between interpersonal and informational justice. Bies and Shapiro 1988 is one of the earlier studies that sparked interest in the interactional justice construct. Greenberg 1990, which contains a well-known quasi-experiment that examined employees’ reactions to pay cuts, also played a key role in fueling interest in the interactional justice construct.

                                    • Bies, Robert J. and Joseph S. Moag. “Interactional Justice: Communication Criteria of Fairness.” In Research on Negotiation in Organizations. Vol. 1. Edited by Roy J. Lewicki, Blair H. Sheppard, and Max H. Bazerman, 43–55. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 1986.

                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                      Introduced the interactional justice construct and argued that a critical component of Procedural Justice judgments is how the procedure is enacted by the authority figure. Suggests that the fairness of the interpersonal treatment can be judged according to four criteria: justification and trustfulness, and respect and propriety.

                                      Find this resource:

                                      • Bies, Robert J. and Debra L. Shapiro. “Voice and Justification: Their Influence on Procedural Fairness Judgments.” Academy of Management Journal 31.3 (1988): 676–685.

                                        DOI: 10.2307/256465Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                        One of the earlier empirical studies on interactional justice, which examined the interaction between procedural justice and informational justice in the context of job recruitment and budget decision making. Results of a lab and follow-up field study provided support for the importance of informational justice above and beyond procedural justice.

                                        Find this resource:

                                        • Colquitt, Jason A. “On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86.3 (2001): 386–400.

                                          DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                          Proposes a four-dimensional model of justice and introduces a measure that can be adapted to assess different types of justice or an overall justice construct.

                                          Find this resource:

                                          • Greenberg, Jerald. “Employee Theft as a Reaction to Underpayment Inequity: The Hidden Cost of Pay Cuts.” Journal of Applied Psychology 75.5 (1990): 561–568.

                                            DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.561Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                            A well-known article that fueled interest in the interactional justice construct. Results of a quasi-experiment in manufacturing plants suggested that feelings of inequity and theft rates during a period of pay cuts were significantly reduced when the basis for the pay cuts was thoroughly and sensitively explained to employees.

                                            Find this resource:

                                            • Greenberg, Jerald. 1993. “The Social Side of Fairness: Interpersonal and Informational Classes of Organizational Justice.” In Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management. Vol. 1. Edited by Russell Cropanzano, 79–103. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993.

                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                              Argues that interactional justice should be separated into two distinct constructs: interpersonal and information justice, with respect and propriety facets representing interpersonal justice and justification and trustfulness facets representing informational justice.

                                              Find this resource:

                                              Justice Measurement

                                              There are a number of validated measures in the organizational justice literature to choose from. Some measures incorporate different types of justice, while others assess overall justice perceptions. Colquitt 2001 details commonly used indirect justice measures that can be used to either capture the different types of justice separately or overall justice as a latent construct. Ambrose and Schminke 2009 introduced a direct measure of global justice perceptions termed the Perceived Overall Justice (POJ) scale. This scale measures a general sense of fairness experienced. Gilliland 2008 raises concerns over the limitations of Likert-type scales when examining justice phenomenon in which extreme experiences of (un)fairness likely have the greatest impact on fairness perceptions and reactions. Colquitt and Shaw 2005 provide a detailed discussion and recommendations regarding organizational justice measurement.

                                              • Ambrose, Maureen L., and Marshall Schminke. “The Role of Overall Justice Judgments in Organizational Justice Research: A Test of Mediation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94.2 (2009): 491–500.

                                                DOI: 10.1037/a0013203Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                Presents findings that overall justice perception is a more proximal determinant of organizational relevant outcomes than specific types of justice. Develops a six-item direct measure of overall justice, termed the Perceived Overall Justice (POJ) scale, to test this proposition in two separate studies.

                                                Find this resource:

                                                • Colquitt, Jason A. “On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86.3 (2001): 386–400.

                                                  DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                  Proposes a four-dimensional model of justice and introduces a measure that can be adapted to assess different types of justice or an overall justice construct.

                                                  Find this resource:

                                                  • Colquitt, Jason A., and John C. Shaw. “How Should Organizational Justice Be Measured?” In Handbook of Organizational Justice. Edited by Jerald Greenberg and Jason A. Colquitt, 113–152. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005.

                                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                    This chapter provides a historical review of justice measurement and also discusses a host of measurement-related issues to consider when measuring organizational justice perceptions.

                                                    Find this resource:

                                                    • Gilliland, Stephen. “The Tails of Justice: A Critical Examination of the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice Constructs.” Human Resource Management Review 18.4 (2008): 271–281.

                                                      DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.08.001Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                      This article raises concerns over the overreliance on Likert-type scales as a means to capture organizational justice perceptions. Implications for the organizational justice field’s current measurement practices are discussed and suggestions for alternative measures are proposed.

                                                      Find this resource:

                                                      Major Theories and Models

                                                      There are a number of theories that have been applied or developed specifically to examine organizational justice (OJ). Scholars have applied various frameworks or taxonomies to organize, compare, and contrast these theories. Drawing from the motivation literature, Cropanzano, et al. 2001 (also cited under General Overviews) organizes existing OJ theories broadly into two categories: content and process theories. Taking a historical approach, Colquitt, et al. 2005 organizes OJ theories into group-oriented conceptualizations (e.g., group engagement models), counterfactual conceptualizations (e.g., fairness theories), and heuristic conceptualizations (e.g., fairness heuristic theories and uncertainty management theories).

                                                      • Colquitt, Jason A., Jerald Greenberg, and Cindy P. Zapata-Phelan. “What is Organizational Justice? A Historical Overview.” In Handbook of Organizational Justice. Edited by Jerald Greenberg and Jason A. Colquitt, 3–56. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005.

                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                        This chapter provides a historical review of the literature in terms of four time waves: Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Interactional Justice, and integrative. The integrative wave organizes integrative models and theories that combine different types of justice into counterfactual conceptualizations, group-oriented conceptualizations, and heuristic conceptualizations.

                                                        Find this resource:

                                                        • Cropanzano, Russell, Zinta S. Bryne, D. Ramona Bobocel, and Deborah E. Rupp. “Moral Virtues, Fairness Heuristics, Social Entities, and Other Denizens of Organizational Justice.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 58.2 (2001): 164–209.

                                                          DOI: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1791Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                          Conceptualizes justice as a motivation phenomenon and use a motivation framework to broadly organize existing organizational justice theories into two categories: process and content theories.

                                                          Find this resource:

                                                          Content Models

                                                          Content theories explain why people care about justice and include instrumental, relational, and moral virtue models. Cropanzano, et al. 2001 contends that these content theories provide the three major perspectives for understanding why justice perceptions predict work-related criteria.

                                                          • Cropanzano, Russell, Deborah E. Rupp, Carolyn J. Mohler, and Marshall Schminke. “Three Roads to Organizational Justice.” In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Vol. 20. Edited by Gerald Ferris, 1–115. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 2001.

                                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                            Argues that there are three primary perspectives that explain why people care about justice: instrumental, relational, and moral. Existing theories are discussed in relation to these three perspectives.

                                                            Find this resource:

                                                            Instrumental

                                                            Instrumental models of organizational justice (OJ) propose that people are motivated by self-interest and seek to maximize their outcomes. Equity theory and social exchange theory arguably fall under this category. Equity theory (Adams 1965, also cited under Organizational Justice Types: Distributive Justice) proposes that individuals determine if they were treated fairly by comparing their own ratio of outcomes to inputs to a referent other, with inequity being perceived when the ratios are unequal. Perceptions of inequity create psychological tensions, which motivate individuals to reduce the inequity in various ways. Social Exchange Theory (SET) is a theoretical framework that has been applied in much OJ research. The OJ literature has primarily drawn from Blau 1964, in which a distinction is made between economic and social exchange relationships. Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005 provide a critique of research that has tested aspects of SET. Masterson, et al. 2000 provides an example of how SET has been utilized in the justice literature.

                                                            • Adams, John S. “Inequity in Social Exchange.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 2. Edited by Leonard Berkowitz, 267–299. New York: Academic Press, 1965.

                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                              Introduces equity theory, which proposes that people are motivated to maintain fair or equitable relationships and determine whether they are treated fairly by comparing the ratio of their outcomes to inputs to that of a set of “comparison others.” Perceptions of inequity motivate people to respond in various ways to restore equity.

                                                              Find this resource:

                                                              • Blau, Peter M. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley, 1964.

                                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                This book takes a sociological perspective in examining the emergent properties that develop through social interactions or exchanges. The organizational justice literature has drawn primarily from Blau’s distinction between economic exchange relationships that are of an impersonal or quid pro quo nature, and social exchange relationships, which are of a socio-emotional nature.

                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                • Cropanzano, Russell, and Marie S. Mitchell “Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review.” Journal of Management 31.6 (2005): 874–900.

                                                                  DOI: 10.1177/0149206305279602Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                  Provides a review and critique of previous tests of social exchange theory (SET) and offers recommendations going forward to help clarify theoretical ambiguities and conceptual issues present in past research on SET.

                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                  • Masterson, Suzanne S., Kyle Lewis, Barry M. Goldman, and M. Susan Taylor. “Integrating Justice and Social Exchange: The Differing Effects of Fair Procedures and Treatment on Work Relationships.” Academy of Management Journal 43.4 (2000): 738–748.

                                                                    DOI: 10.2307/1556364Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                    This empirical article examines whether perceived organizational support (POS) and leader-member exchange (LMX) mediate the relationships between Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice and outcomes that are directed at the organization and supervisor, respectively. Results suggest that it is important to match the source of the fairness to that of social exchange relationship and outcome.

                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                    Relational/Group-Oriented

                                                                    Relational models of justice include the group value model (Lind and Tyler 1988, also cited in Organizational Justice Types: Procedural Justice), relational model (Tyler and Lind 1992), and group engagement model (Tyler and Blader 2000). The group value model and relational models of organizational justice are predecessors of the group engagement model. The group engagement model of justice is a framework for understanding why people engage in cooperative behavior in groups to which they belong (Tyler and Blader 2000). Specifically, this model proposes that procedural and Interactional Justice judgments are the primary determinants of group members’ attitudes, values, and cooperative behaviors, and that people care about these judgments because they provide important information that is relevant to their social identity.

                                                                    • Lind, E. Allan, and Tom R. Tyler. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum, 1988.

                                                                      DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                      Introduces the group value model of justice to address the limitations of Instrumental (i.e., self-interest) models of justice. The group value model emphasizes the importance of procedural and interactional justice in relation to an individual’s group membership and status within the group to which the individual belongs.

                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                      • Tyler, Tom R., and Steven L. Blader. Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 2000.

                                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                        Proposes the group engagement model, a successor to the group value model and the relational model, as a framework that identifies procedural and interactional justice judgments as the primary determinants of group members’ attitudes and cooperative behaviors, which operate via identity and status concerns.

                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                        • Tyler, Tom R., and E. Allan Lind. 1992. “A Relational Model of Authority in Groups.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 25. Edited by Mark P. Zanna, 115–191. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1992.

                                                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                          Proposes the relational model of justice, which is based on the group value model of justice. Overall, the relational and group value models are quite similar to one another.

                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                          Moral Virtue/Deontic Justice

                                                                          The deontic justice model argues that people care about justice not only out of self-interest, but due to basic moral standards of what is right and wrong (Folger 1998). Folger 2001 lays the groundwork for a theory of deontic justice and discusses how acts of injustice elicit deontic or morally based reactions to injustice in which transgressors of the injustice are socially held accountable. Cropanzano, et al. 2003 reviews the empirical evidence in support of deontic justice. Gilliland, et al. 2008 is an edited book that has chapters devoted to the evolutionary basis of deontic justice and the role of morality as it relates to fairness judgments and reactions to injustice, as well as other topics related to social responsibility and justice.

                                                                          • Cropanzano, Russell, Barry Goldman, and Robert Folger. “Deontic Justice: The Role of Moral Principles in Workplace Fairness.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 24.8 (2003): 1019–1024.

                                                                            DOI: 10.1002/job.228Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                            Argues that traditional views of justice motives (e.g., Instrumental and interpersonal), which focus on self-interest, ignore principled moral obligations. Reviews evidence in support of the deontic justice perspective.

                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                            • Folger, Robert. “Fairness As a Moral Virtue.” In Managerial Ethics: Moral Management of People and Processes. Edited by Marshall Schminke, 13–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998.

                                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                              Argues that organizational justice researchers need to look beyond self-interest motives relative to fairness to deontic motives of justice, in which fairness is conceptualized as a moral virtue.

                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                              • Folger, Robert. “Fariness as Deonance.” In Theoretical and Cultural Perspectives on Organizational Justice. Edited by S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, and Daniel P. Skarlicki, 3–34. Research in Social Issues in Management. New York: Information Age, 2001.

                                                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                Provides the conceptual groundwork for a theory of deontic justice.

                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                • Gilliland, Stephen W., Dirk D. Steiner, Daniel P. Skarlicki, eds. Justice, Morality, and Social Responsibility. Research in Social Science Issues in Management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age, 2008.

                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                  This edited book includes a number of chapters that examine the role of morality in justice judgment formations and reactions to injustice.

                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                  Process Models

                                                                                  Process theories explain the process through which people form justice perceptions. It includes fairness theory, fairness heuristic theory, and uncertainty management theory.

                                                                                  Fairness Theory

                                                                                  Fairness theory is a direct successor to Referent Cognitions Theory (RCT) (see Folger, 1986). This theory proposes that when an individual experiences an adverse event, counterfactual thinking is triggered in order to determine the extent to which an injustice has occurred (see Folger and Cropanzano, 1998, also cited under Justice and Human Resource Management; Folger and Cropanzano 2001). Specifically, the actual adverse event is compared to an imagined alternative event in terms of whether the event would have been better if it had occurred differently, whether the agent could have acted differently, and whether the agent should have acted differently. Greater injustice is perceived when an individual can imagine more favorable versions of what might have been. Although this theory could be extended to positive events, the justice literature has focused on negative events.

                                                                                  • Folger, Robert. “Rethinking Equity Theory: A Referent Cognition Model.” In Justice in Social Relations. Edited by Hans W. Bierhoff, Ronald L. Cohen, and Jerald Greenberg, 145–162. New York: Plenum, 1986.

                                                                                    DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4684-5059-0Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                    Presents Reference Cognition Theory (RCT), which is a predecessor of Fairness Cognitions Theory.

                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                    • Folger, Robert, and Russell Cropanzano. Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1998.

                                                                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                      Contains the first explication of fairness theory. This event-based theory proposes that counterfactual thinking is triggered when an adverse event occurs in order to assess whether the source of the injustice should be held accountable. The authors note that the theory could be extended to positive events as well.

                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                      • Folger, Robert, and Russell Cropanzano. “Fairness Theory: Justice as Accountability.” In Advances in Organizational Justice. Edited by Jerald Greenberg and Russell Cropanzano, 1–56. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001.

                                                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                        Provides a conceptual overview of fairness theory based on the first explication of the theory by the same authors.

                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                        Fairness Heuristic Theory

                                                                                        Fairness heuristic theory (FHT) proposes that in the absence of information, people use fairness heuristics or psychological shortcuts to help determine if an authority figure can be trusted. Although this theory had been discussed in previous work (Lind, et al. 1993), Lind 2001 provided a more complete explication of this theory in relation to the fundamental social dilemma: this dilemma describes situations in which individuals need to comply with authority figures in order to receive valued outcomes, however engaging in such cooperative behavior may put them at risk of exploitation.

                                                                                        • Lind, E. Allan. “Fairness Heuristic Theory: Justice Judgments as Pivotal Cognitions in Organizational Relations.” In Advances in Organizational Justice. Edited by Jerald Greenberg and Russell Cropanzano, 56–89. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001.

                                                                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                          Provides a full explication of fairness heuristic theory in relation to the fundamental social dilemma, which describes a situation in which individuals need to comply with authority figures in order to receive valued outcomes, however engaging in such cooperative behavior may put them at risk of exploitation.

                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                          • Lind, E. Allan, Carol T. Kulik, Maureen Ambrose, and Maria V. de Vera Park. “Individual and Corporate Dispute Resolution: Using Procedural Fairness as a Decision Heuristic.” Administrative Science Quarterly 38.2 (1993): 224–251.

                                                                                            DOI: 10.2307/2393412Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                            Provides empirical evidence, in two separate studies, for the proposition that people use fairness heuristics (operationalized as procedural justice judgments) in deciding whether to accept the directives of an authority figure.

                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                            Uncertainty Management Theory

                                                                                            Uncertainty management theory (UMT) is considered a successor to Fairness Heuristic Theory (FHT) and extends this theory by proposing that using fairness heuristics can not only help people manage their reactions associated with uncertainty about trust, but also their reactions associated with uncertainty in general. For example, Tangirala and Alge 2006 applied uncertainty management theory to information uncertainty, finding that this type of uncertainty made fairness issues more salient to members of computer-mediated groups. Lind and van den Bos 2002 and van den Bos and Lind 2002 provide the first full explications of UMT.

                                                                                            • Lind, E. Allan, and Kees van den Bos. “When Fairness Works: Toward a General Theory of Uncertainty Management.” In Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 24. Edited by Barry M. Staw and Roderick M. Kramer, 181–223. London: JAI, 2002.

                                                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                              Provides one of the first full explications of uncertainty management theory.

                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                              • Tangirala, Subrahmaniam, and Bradley J. Alge. “Reactions to Unfair Events in Computer-Mediated Groups: A Test of Uncertainty Management Theory.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 100.1 (2006): 1–20.

                                                                                                DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.11.002Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                An empirical article that used an uncertainty management theory framework to investigate whether limited availability of social information (termed information uncertainty) increased the saliency of fairness in computer-mediated groups as opposed to face-to-face groups.

                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                • van den Bos, Kees, and E. Allan Lind. “Uncertainty Management by Means of Fairness Judgments.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 34. Edited by Mark P. Zanna, 1–60. Amsterdam: Academic Press, 2002.

                                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                  Provides one of the first full explications of uncertainty management theory.

                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                  Multifoci Justice

                                                                                                  Multifoci theories of justice argue that employees can maintain distinct justice perceptions about multiple parties or entities (e.g., organization, supervisor, coworkers, teammates) and direct different attitudes and behaviors toward these multiple parties (Rupp and Cropanzano 2002). Lavelle, et al. 2007 provides a review of the multifoci literature and introduces the target-similarity model, which argues that stronger effects will be found for relationships in which constructs reference the same source. For example, supervisor-related justice would have stronger effects for supervisor commitment, while organizational justice would have stronger effects for organizational commitment. Lavelle, et al. 2009 provide empirical support for the target-similarity model in two studies.

                                                                                                  • Lavelle, James J., Joel Brockner, Mary A. Konovsky, et al. “Commitment, Procedural Fairness, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Multifoci Analysis.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 30.3 (2009): 337–357.

                                                                                                    DOI: 10.1002/job.518Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                    Provided a test of the target-similarity model in the context of layoff survivors and student project teams. Findings were generally supportive of the model.

                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                    • Lavelle, James J., Deborah E. Rupp, and Joel Brockner. “Taking a Multifoci Approach to the Study of Justice, Social Exchange, and Citizenship Behavior: The Target-Similarity Model.” Journal of Management 33.6 (2007): 841–866.

                                                                                                      DOI: 10.1177/0149206307307635Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                      This article reviews and integrates the multifoci literatures on organizational justice, social exchange, and citizenship behaviors by proposing a “target similarity” model in which employees form distinct justice judgments about, and direct different attitudes and behaviors toward, multiple sources or foci of justice.

                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                      • Rupp, Deborah E., and Russell Cropanzano. “The Mediating Effects of Social Exchange Relationships in Predicting Workplace Outcomes from Multifoci Organizational Justice.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002): 925–946.

                                                                                                        DOI: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00036-5Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                        Tests a multifoci model in which the relationships between multifoci justice and multifoci outcomes are mediated by multifoci social exchange relationships. Cross-foci effects were found for the supervisor, with Interactional Justice exhibiting stronger effects than procedural justice.

                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                        Third-Party Justice

                                                                                                        The organizational justice (OJ) literature has primarily focused on the first party (i.e., the victim’s) reactions to justice. More recently, researchers have begun to examine third-party reactions to justice. Third parties are individuals who form impressions of OJ based upon an indirect and vicarious experience of an organizational event (Skarlicki and Kulik 2005) and may include coworkers, team members, customers, or the general public. The research that has been conducted suggests that third parties pay attention and react meaningfully to the (mis)treatment of others, albeit in different ways. For example, in a series of empirical studies, Turillo, et al. 2002 found that witnesses to an injustice sacrifice self-interest in order to punish a transgressor who has mistreated others. Rupp and Bell 2010 found that witnesses to a transgression can choose to do nothing as a result of moral self-regulation. O’Reilly and Aquino 2011 present a model of third-party reactions to acts of mistreatment against others in the workplace. Rupp, et al. 2006 extend third-party justice research to external parties in the context of corporate social responsibility.

                                                                                                        • O’Reilly, Jane, and Karl Aquino. “A Model of Third Parties’ Morally Motivated Responses to Mistreatment in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review 36.3 (2011): 526–543.

                                                                                                          DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2011.61031810Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                          A theoretical piece which proposes a model that focuses on morally motivated reactions of third parties who witness the mistreatment of others in the workplace. Proposes that moral identity influences this process, along with power and belief in the disciplinary system of an organization.

                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                          • Rupp, Deborah E., and Chris M. Bell. “Extending the Deontic Model of Justice: Moral Self-Regulation in Third-Party Responses to Injustice.” Business Ethics Quarterly 20.1 (2010): 89–106.

                                                                                                            DOI: 10.5840/beq20102017Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                            Provides support for moral self-regulation as an alternative deontic reaction to witnessed injustice, which results in the witness doing nothing as opposed to punishing the transgressor.

                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                            • Rupp, Deborah E., Jyoti Ganapathi, Ruth V. Aguilera, and Cynthia A. Williams. “Employee Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: An Organizational Justice Framework.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 27.4 (2006): 537–543.

                                                                                                              DOI: 10.1002/job.380Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                              Presents a theoretical model of employee reactions to corporate social responsibility in which employees form distinct perceptions of corporate social responsibility that impact individually relevant outcomes via Instrumental, relational, and deontic motives.

                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                              • Skarlicki, Daniel P., and Carol T. Kulik. “Third-Party Reactions to Employee (Mis)Treatment: A Justice Perspective.” Research in Organizational Behavior 26 (2005): 183–229.

                                                                                                                DOI: 10.1016/S0191-3085(04)26005-1Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                Provides a model of third-party justice, based on Fairness Theory, that describes how third parties’ justice perceptions about an organization or its agents are formed based on how others are treated, and identifies factors that can predict whether third parties will act on their justice perceptions.

                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                • Turillo, Carmelo Joseph, Robert Folger, James L. Lavelle, Elizabeth E. Umphress, and Julie O. Gee. “Is Virtue Its Own Reward? Self-Sacrificial Decisions for the Sake of Fairness.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89.1 (2002): 839–865.

                                                                                                                  DOI: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00032-8Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                  Findings from a series of studies—in which respondents are observers of a moral transgression between two parties with whom they have no relationship—indicated that individuals make self-sacrificing decisions to punish those that have mistreated others, even when there is no personal gain for doing so.

                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                  Justice in Teams

                                                                                                                  Much of the organizational justice (OJ) research has been conducted at the individual level. More recently, scholars have begun to examine organizational justice at the group or unit level. Much of this research has focused on OJ climate, defined as the collective or shared perception that one’s work team is being treated fairly by others. Whitman, et al. 2012 provides a meta-analytic review of the relationship between OJ climate and unit-level outcomes, while Colquitt, et al. 2005 provides a qualitative review of the literature on unit-level justice. Li and Cropanzano 2009 also furnishes a qualitative review of the literature on OJ climate, as well as research on intraunit climate, which they define as shared perceptions of the extent to which unit members treat each other fairly. Roberson and Colquitt 2005 is a theoretical piece, which proposes a social network model of OJ to explain how individual justice perceptions converge to form a shared or collective perception of justice. The model also proposes that a configural justice form may emerge when certain barriers to convergence are present. Mannix, et al. 2010 is an edited book composed of chapters on a host of topics related to OJ in teams.

                                                                                                                  • Colquitt, Jason A., Cindy P. Zapata-Phelan, and Quinetta M. Roberson. “Justice in Teams: A Review of Fairness Effects in Collective Contexts.” Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 24 (2005): 53–94.

                                                                                                                    DOI: 10.1016/S0742-7301(05)24002-1Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                    This is a qualitative review of studies that have examined organizational justice (OJ) in a collective context to show that the team context can enhance the importance of justice in organizations. The review concludes that OJ effects found at the individual level generalize to team settings; that justice experienced individually, or as a team, impacts members’ individual reactions; and that justice climate can impact collective reactions.

                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                    • Li, Andrew, and Russell Cropanzano. “Fairness at the Group Level: Justice Climate and Intraunit Justice Climate.” Journal of Management 35.3 (2009): 564–599.

                                                                                                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                      Provides a review of the literature on unit-level justice in terms of justice climate and intraunit climate.

                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                      • Mannix, Elizabeth A., Margaret A. Neale, and Elizabeth Mullen, eds. Fairness and Groups. Research on Managing Groups and Teams 13. Bingley, UK: Emerald, 2010.

                                                                                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                        This edited book presents a host of theoretical discussions and research on topics related to fairness in groups, including a multi-level temporal model of justice proposed by Deborah E. Rupp and E. Layne Paddock, chapter 9.

                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                        • Roberson, Quinetta M., and Jason A. Colquitt. “Shared and Configural Justice: A Social Network Model of Justice in Teams.” Academy of Management Review 30.3 (2005): 595–607.

                                                                                                                          DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2005.17293715Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                          Introduces a model of justice in teams in which social influence processes lead individual justice perceptions to converge, which results in a shared or collective perception of justice. The model also proposes that a configural justice form may emerge when certain barriers to convergence are present.

                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                          • Whitman, Daniel S., Suzette Caleo, Nichelle C. Carpenter, Margaret T. Horner, and Jeremy B. Bernerth. “Fairness at the Collective Level: A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Consequences and Boundary Conditions of Organizational Justice Climate.” Journal of Applied Psychology 97.4 (2012): 776–791.

                                                                                                                            DOI: 10.1037/a0028021Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                            A meta-analytic review of the organizational justice climate research, which provides empirical support for justice climate’s effects on unit-level outcomes, with differential effects among the types or specific facets of justice climate.

                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                            Cross-Cultural Perspectives

                                                                                                                            The research that has been conducted on cross-cultural issues and organizational justice suggests culture plays an important role in the formation of perceptions of and reactions to organizational justice. Leung 2005 reviews the organizational justice literature to identify those justice effects that generalize across cultures and those that are culture-specific effects. Beugré 2007 also reviews the literature on organizational justice to examine the impact of culture on employee justice judgments and reactions to justice perceptions. This book also discusses the limitations of existing organizational justice theories in integrating cross-cultural perspectives. Gilliland, et al. 2001 includes chapters taking up almost half of the book that examine issues of diversity, and cultural diversity specifically, in relation to fairness in the workplace.

                                                                                                                            • Beugré, Constant D. A Cultural Perspective of Organizational Justice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age, 2007.

                                                                                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                              This book examines the impact of culture on employee justice judgments and reactions to justice perceptions. Cross-cultural models of employees’ reactions to (in)justice are proposed to address the limitations of existing theories of organizational justice.

                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                              • Gilliland, Stephen W., Dirk D. Steiner, and Daniel P. Skarlicki. Theoretical and Cultural Perspectives on Organizational Justice. Research in Social Issues in Management. Greenwich, CT: Information Age, 2001.

                                                                                                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                This edited book presents four chapters that examine issues of diversity, and cultural diversity specifically, in relation to fairness in the workplace. [ISBN: 9781930608092]

                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                • Leung, Kwok. “How Generalizable are Justice Effects across Cultures?” In Handbook of Organizational Justice. Edited by Jerald Greenberg and Jason A. Colquitt, 555–586. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005.

                                                                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                  Reviews the organizational justice literature to identify justice effects that generalize across cultures and those that are culture-specific effects. Also, identifies common methodological issues present in existing cross-cultural research on justice, and provides suggestions for future research.

                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                  Justice and Affect

                                                                                                                                  Despite the intuitive pairing of justice and affect, there is still much to learn about the role of affect in justice-related experiences and events. De Cremer 2007 integrates the justice and affect literatures in an attempt to fill the gap in the justice literature by discussing the various roles that affect can take in forming and reacting to fairness perceptions in the workplace. Cropanzano, et al. 2011 reviews past research linking organizational justice and affect and discusses how existing theories and models from past research can be utilized and integrated. Guo, et al. 2011 presents a person-centric or within-person approach to studying justice that incorporates affect (mood and emotions), cognitive and physiological reactions, and memory processes to examine how justice is experienced by workers within their everyday working lives.

                                                                                                                                  • Cropanzano, Russell, Jordan H. Stein, and Thierry Nadisic. Social Justice and the Experience of Emotion. New York: Routledge, 2011.

                                                                                                                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                    This book takes a historical approach to reviewing literature from various disciplines that has linked justice and affect. In doing so, it reviews and critiques existing theories and models and explores the causal relationships among justice, affect, and emotional regulation.

                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                    • De Cremer, David, ed. Advances in the Psychology of Justice and Affect. Charlotte, NC: Information Age, 2007.

                                                                                                                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                      This edited book integrates the organizational justice and affect literature to gain a better understanding of the role of affect in the formation and reaction to fairness perceptions and to stimulate research in this area.

                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                      • Guo, Jing, Deborah Rupp, Howard Weiss, and John Trougakos. “Justice in Organizations: A Person-Centric Perspective.” In Emerging Perspectives on Organizational Justice and Ethics. Edited by Stephen W. Gilliland, Dirk D. Steiner, and Daniel P. Skarlicki, 3–32. Research in Social Issues in Management 2. Charlotte, NC: Information Age, 2011.

                                                                                                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                        Presents a person-centric approach that incorporates affect, cognitive and physiological reactions, and memory processes to examine how justice is experienced by workers as they experience their everyday working lives. This within-person approach is proposed to supplement past organizational justice research that has primarily taken a between-person approach.

                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                        Justice and Neuroscience

                                                                                                                                        A small stream of research in the organizational justice literature has begun to utilize organizational neuroscience in their research. Drawing from multiple disciplines, Beugré 2009 proposed a model of neuro-organizational justice that takes a neurological perspective to understand how individuals form fairness perceptions and react to (un)fairness in the workplace. Becker, et al. 2011 proposes that organizational neuroscience can be viewed as an additional level of analysis that can be utilized to address conceptual debates in organizational behavior—including the classic debate in the organizational justice literature regarding whether individuals care about fairness due to self-interest or whether individuals value fairness for its own sake. Dulebohn, et al. 2009 utilized Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to contribute to the debate in the organizational justice literature regarding whether or not Procedural Justice and Distributive Justice are distinct constructs. Study findings suggested that they were: specifically, results indicated that these two types of justice had differing brain activation patterns, with unfair procedures evoking greater activation in parts of the brain related to social cognition, whereas fairness outcomes triggered greater activation in the more emotional areas of the brain.

                                                                                                                                        • Becker, William J., Russel Cropanzano, and Alan G. Sanfey. “Organizational Neuroscience: Taking Organizational Theory Inside the Neural Black Box.” Journal of Management 37.4 (2011): 933–961.

                                                                                                                                          DOI: 10.1177/0149206311398955Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                          A conceptual piece, which argues that organizational neuroscience can be viewed as a new level of analysis (i.e., brain processes within individuals) that can be utilized to gain a better understanding of workplace phenomena and address conceptual debates in the organizational behavior literature.

                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                          • Beugré, Constant D. “Exploring the Neural Basis of Fairness: A Model of Neuro-Organizational Justice.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 110.2 (2009): 129–139.

                                                                                                                                            DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.06.005Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                            Takes a multidisciplinary approach to studying justice by drawing from social-cognitive neuroscience, neuroeconomics, and organizational justice to propose a model of neuro-organizational justice. Also proposes a “fairness theory of the mind” to guide managers in terms of the practical implications of the neuro-organizational justice model.

                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                            • Dulebohn, James H., Donald E. Conlon, Issidoros Sarinopoulos, Robert B. Davidson, and Gerry McNamara. “The Biological Bases of Fairness: Neuroimaging Evidence for the Distinctiveness of Procedural and Distributive Justice.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 110.2 (2009): 140–151.

                                                                                                                                              DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.09.001Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                              Uses fMRI methods to address the question of whether procedural justice and distributive justice are distinct constructs by examining whether brain activation patterns differ between procedural and distributive justice. Study findings indicate that unfair procedures evoked greater activation in parts of the brain related to social cognition, whereas there was greater activation in the more emotional areas of the brain for unfair outcomes.

                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                              Justice and Human Resource Management

                                                                                                                                              Much of the organizational justice literature has strong practical implications for the workplace in general and for human resource management practices particularly. Folger and Cropanzano 1998 (cited under Major Theories and Models: Fairness Theory) examines the theoretical and practical implications of OJ for human resource management practices in terms of staffing decisions, performance evaluations, and conflict management. Greenberg and Colquitt 2005 (cited under General Overviews) provide a number of chapters that examine OJ applications for stress management, employee selection, discrimination and prejudice, and training.

                                                                                                                                              • Folger, Robert, and Russell Cropanzano. Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1998.

                                                                                                                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                An older review of the organizational justice (OJ) literature that examines the theoretical and practical implications of OJ research for human resource management practices including staffing decisions, performance appraisals, and conflict management.

                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                • Greenberg, Jerald, and Jason A. Colquitt, eds. Handbook of Organizational Justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005.

                                                                                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                  Provides a comprehensive overview of the organizational justice (OJ) literature with a number of chapters devoted specifically to applications of OJ for stress management, employee selection, discrimination and prejudice, and training.

                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                  back to top

                                                                                                                                                  Article

                                                                                                                                                  Up

                                                                                                                                                  Down