Relational Justice in Organizations: The Group-Value Model and Support for Change

This paper examines the psychological dynamics of the Group-Value Model for a behavioral orientation which has seldom been considered in the social justice literature: acceptance and support for change. A field study was conducted, with 176 participants members of an organization which was undergoing a change process. Participants were asked (a) to think of a specific relevant conflict situation with their supervisor; (b) to evaluate supervisor's behavior in that situation, with respect to relational and distributive justice; (c) to state the justice aspects most valued in conflict situations with their supervisor. A test of the model was conducted through a mediation analysis. According to the Group-Value Model (GVM), respect experienced within the group and pride in the group were mediating variables between justice judgements and orientation toward acceptance and support for change in the organization. Interactional and procedural aspects (relational judgements) were the only ones to predict pride, respect, and behavioral orientation, and were also the ones most valued in general conflict situations with the supervisor. The model was also tested at three different levels of analysis: organization as a whole, department, and work group. This confirmed pride and respect within the group as mediating variables between relational justice judgements and orientation toward acceptance and support for change at the department and workgroup levels.     

The fair process effect and procedural criteria in the resolution of disputes between intimate same-sex friends

This series of studies extended procedural justice research to the informal domain of dispute resolution in intimate same-sex friendship. The first study identified the types of disputes that occur between friends and the concerns that friends have when choosing dispute resolution procedures. Seven dispute types and 11 procedural criteria were found relevant to dispute resolution in friendship. Study 2 assessed the importance of procedural criteria for resolving several dispute scenarios. As expected, ratings of criterion importance were affected by subject and disputant sex. Females rated four criteria as more important than did males, and one criterion was rated as more important in disputes involving a male and a female than in disputes involving two females. The importance of procedural criteria was also influenced by the type of dispute, but this effect was qualified by an interaction with the dispute version. It was suggested that the importance of procedural criteria is generally defined by the context of friendship and specifically defined by the dispute topic. In Study 3, the relations among subject sex, traditional fairness variables, and criterion-based measures of process control were examined. Consistent with studies in other domains, process control predicted procedural justice, and decision control predicted distributive justive. Moreover, the hypothesized fair process effect emerged as a function of speed, a criterion-based measure of process control.     

Fairnes issues and job satisfaction among korean employees: The significance of status value and procedural justice in work orientation

This study investigates how justice or fairness issues such as procedural justice, distributive justice, and status equity affect job satisfaction among Korean employees. Incorporating cultural values and social norms salient in Korea, the study hypothesizes that perceptions of procedural justice enhance more job satisfaction than perceptions of distributive justice among Korean employees. Another hypothesis, based on Korean employees' aspiration for higher occupational status, predicts that perceptions of status equity, i.e., occupational prestige of their current jobs relative to their human capital, also increase job satisfaction more than perceptions of distributive justice. These two hypotheses were tested with a sample of 501 full-time employees in Korea. Supporting the hypotheses, the results indicated that (i) perceptions of procedural justice produce more job satisfaction than do perceptions of distributive justice; and (ii) perceptions of status equity are the most important factor predicting job satisfaction among the three fairness issues. Cross-cultural implications of these findings are discussed in more detail.The author thanks Professor Hyunho Seok and the Korean Social Science Council (KSSC) for their 1990 national survey data sets.     

Workplace justice and employee worth

Distributive and procedural justice gain new meaning in light of other distinctions about how organizations value employees (the employees' “worth”). Fair compensation gives employees worth as achieved status: how the employee is like some employees (similarly rewarded) and not like others (dissimilarly rewarded). But employees also want to be treated uniquely as individuals and in other ways to be treated like all other employees, both reflecting worth as ascribed status. Such worth need not involve the distribution of outcomes; it can be gained if procedures function as ends in themselves. Different types of worth thus become the source of different criteria for justice. Based on a paper entitled “Justice as Worth,” which was prepared for the Third International Conference on Social Justice research (held in the Netherlands during July 1991).     

Disputes in Japan: A cross-cultural test of the procedural justice model

Research on procedural justice has provided ample evidence that people are concerned not only with the outcome of disputes but also with the fairness of the procedures used to resolve disputes. The majority of the studies examining the importance of procedural justice have been conducted in the United States and Western European countries. This study tests the generality of the procedural justice model by examining the importance of fair procedures to people in a non-Western country, Japan. This study also examines the meaning of a fair procedure from a legal perspective. Past studies have drawn the procedural justice criteria considered from social psychology. We examine several additional criteria derived from the legal concept of due process of law. Results indicate that fair procedures are more important to subjects than fair outcomes in both a traffic accident dispute and a breach of contract case. Furthermore, across both types of disputes, fairness concerns are more important than nonfairness concerns. These results are consistent with findings from studies conducted in Western countries. A new finding that emerges from the study is that the clarity with which a procedure is formulated and presented is a strong determinant of procedural justice judgments.     

Opening a window into police internal affairs: Impact of procedural justice reform on third-party attitudes

The study explores the impact of a procedural innovation on justice judgments made by third party observers. The innovation involved the establishment of a review panel with civilian participants to monitor a police department's investigation of allegations of misconduct against its officers. The study distinguishes the impact on racial minority observers from that on racial majority observers. Data suggest that the innovation had a positive, though differing, impact on the justice judgments of both minority and majority observers.     

Procedural justice at German courts as seen by defendants and juvenile prisoners

The article summarizes German research on procedural and distributive justice at criminal courts. The first German field studies addressing these topics are presented. Procedural justice characteristics like neutrality, courtesy, equal consideration of evidence, voice, and fairness of procedural rules are relevant for Germans. A study on juvenile prisoners shows no support for equity theory and some for the Group Value model. Lay assessors receive positive evaluations by juvenile prisoners.     

The intellectual adolescence of organizational justice: You've come a long way,maybe

To highlight the advances and limitations in the study of organizational justice as reflected by the articles in this issue, the field is characterized as being in its intellectual adolescence. Following this analogy, some signs of scientific maturity are noted. Among these are (a) increased attention to the connections between organizational justice and various organizational processes, (b) expanded efforts toward conceptual refinement, and (c) greater reliance on research conducted in natural settings. At the same time, the adolescent state of the field is also marked by its intellectual awkwardness and immaturity. Indications of this include (a) the absence of guiding theory, (b) an underdeveloped research agenda, and (c) an overreliance on the use of ad hoc measurements. Based on these limitations, suggestions are made for ways of nurturing the field's development. The article concludes with an optimistic vision of tomorrow's field of organizational justice.     

Advance notice as a means of reducing relative deprivation

Considerable research has documented that global perceptions of proceduralv fairness are associated with reductions in relative deprivation (RD). Less research has examined the specific process elements that lead individuals to perceive procedural fairness. In view of this, several researchers have suggested that providing advance notice concerning a negative decision increases perceived justice and thereby lowers levels of RD. Unfortunately, the evidence for this causal relationship is currently limited and is based upon a small number of correlation and role-playing studies. Thus, the present paper reports on two experimental studies that investigate the causal relationship between advance notice and RD. Findings in Study 1 showed that advance notice impacted the cognitive aspects of RD but not the affective or behavioral aspects. However, some methodological limitations were identified. These were corrected and a second experiment was conducted. This time advance notice lowered both the cognitive and affective aspects of RD but still did not impact the behavioral measure. Results are discussed in terms of Tyler's (1987) group value model.     

程序规范的解释:范畴、理念与方法

民事诉讼程序规范存在着解释的必要性。程序法定与程序自由、强行程序规范与任意程序规范、禁止任意诉讼原则与诉讼契约、法官的程序控制权与当事人的程序选择权等范畴是法院解释诉讼程序规范过程中必须斟酌的内容。对程序规范进行解释须以宪法规范和民事诉讼目的为出发点 ,以诉讼基本原则作为解释的基本框架。诉讼程序规范的解释方法有语义解释、体系解释、目的解释、诚信解释等。