Why procedural justice in organizations?

This article reviews the existing research and theory on procedural justice and considers how it may be applied to the study of organizational behavior. It begins by distinguishing between the concepts of distributive justice and procedural justice and noting the historical contexts within which they emerged. Existing conceptual contributions and the research inspired by them are reviewed. The few existing studies applying procedural justice notions to organizational contexts are summarized, and the contributions of the articles to the present issue of this journal are reviewed relative to these efforts. The article closes by discussing the dual benefits of studying procedural justice in organizations: the enhanced understanding of the concept of justice and the behavior of people in organizations.     

The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior

To investigate the relationship between fairness and organizational outcomes, the present study examined the survey responses of government employees at six Federal installations. Indices of procedural and distributive fairness were factor-analytically derived. Multiple regression analyses indicated that both the procedural measures and the distributive measures were significantly related to measures of job satisfaction, evaluation of supervisor, conflict/harmony, trust in management, and turnover intention. Procedural fairness accounted for significantly more variance than distributive fairness in each of these criterion measures, except for turnover intention. These findings are related to conceptual and methodological issues concerning procedural fairness and organizational behavior.     

Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace

The interrelatedness of procedural and distributive justice has implications for organizational practice, especially in the area of performance appraisal. I explore these implications by first describing how procedures can influence perceptions of distributive justice: Procedural improprieties can bring to mind the possibility that a more just outcome might have been obtained if only more acceptable practices had been followed. Next I discuss a second form of interrelatedness — how distributive consequences can influence perceptions of procedural justice — by suggesting that the fairness of a procedure can be assessed in terms of its expected-value (typical or most probable) outcome. These points are illustrated by a discussion of howvoice, or the opportunity for employees to contribute information during the performance appraisal process, can affect both appraisal accuracy and perception of fairness.     

Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals

One-hundred-seventeen college students performed a task on which they received a negative, neutral, or positive performance evaluation. The evaluations were made by the experimenter who (i) kept a diary documenting subjects' performance, (ii) observed their performance but did not keep a diary, or (iii) made the evaluation on no apparent basis (control). It was found that both the evaluation procedure and the evaluation outcome itself were perceived as being fairer when diaries were used as the basis for making evaluations relative to either subjects in the observation procedure group or the control group. The practical implications of these findings for performance appraisals are considered along with the implications for conceptual work on procedural justice.     

Procedural justice and ethical decision making

Procedural justice, in the form of voice and respectful treatment by supervisor, and ethical decision making are examined in this research. Ethical decision making is hypothesized to be a direct function of moral intent, as indicated by willingness to use moral criteria in decision making. Moral intent is, in turn, expected to be a function of the decision-making context, including perceptions of voice, respect and trust between supervisor and subordinate, and moral climate. Individual moral development is also expected to have a positive effect on moral intent. Results generally support the model, with two exceptions. First, perception of voice has a negative effect on moral intent, while caring climate and respectful supervisory relations have the expected positive effect on moral intent. These results suggest either a compensatory model of ethical decision making or a complacency effect. Second, individual characteristics had very little effect on either the decision made or the level of moral intent developed, save for one decision. These results suggest an important overlooked variable, the salience of issues for procedural justice concerns.     

Perceptions of justice: Clientele evaluations of conflict adjustment by a utility regulatory agency

During the past 15 years social psychological research on justice has evaluated hypotheses about linkages among various personal and institutional attributes and variables like outcome favorability and perceptions of procedural and distributive justice in decision-making contexts. This article reexamines hypotheses and findings about procedural and distributive justice using data from the dispute adjustment process used by a state regulatory agency. This study differs from any previous studies of perceptions of justice in two respects. First, the study employs data about the perceptions ofboth sides of a disputing experience before a public authority. Second, rather than using multiple regression and path analysis as in many past studies, we illustrate the value of hierarchical log-linear analysis as an analytical technique. The data analyzed through loglinear analysis permit us to reconsider previous conclusions about the procedural neutrality and participation in dispute adjustment and the linkage of these concepts to the legitimacy of the political regime.     

Toward general principles of managerial fairness

The present study identified the principles employees use for judging a broad range of managerial actions. A cross-sectional sample of 44 executives were asked to describe recent fair and unfair treatment in seven areas of management responsibility: planning, staff development, delegating, motivating, coordinating, daily activities, and representing the organization to the public. These responses were coded to yield 16 rules guiding judgments about perceived managerial fairness. Aggregation of these rules yielded six major clusters of fairness concerns. The paper describes these clusters in detail and highlights their potential usefulness to a broader understanding of the complex nature of procedural fairness judgments in organizations.     

Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts

There has been an increasing amount of research conducted on issues of procedural justice. Although this research has demonstrated that the type of procedure used to allocate outcomes has an independent influence on people's judgments of the fairness of a decision, there is growing empirical evidence that such judgments are influenced by the enactment of the procedure as well. Fairness concerns raised about the propriety of a decision maker's behavior during the enactment of procedures are representative of a desire forinteractional justice. In this paper, we present three studies that examine the effects of giving acausal account, or a justification, versus not providing a justification, on judgments of interactional fairness and endorsement of a decision maker's actions. In Study I, a laboratory study, ratings of interactional fairness and support for a manager were higher when subjects received a causal account that claimed mitigating circumstances for a manager's improper action than when they did not receive such a causal account. A second laboratory study replicated the same pattern of findings in two different organizational contexts. In addition, it was found that the perceived adequacy of the causal account was a critical factor explaining its effect. In Study 3, a field setting, ratings of both interactional fairness and procedural fairness were higher when a manager provided anadequate causal account to justify the allocation of an unfavorable outcome. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for research on interactional and procedural justice.     

Children's criteria for procedural justice: Developing a Young People's Procedural Justice Scale

A Procedural Justice Scale for Young People was developed to examine the criteria that Grades 7 and 9 students thought were important in judging the fairness of the procedures used to judge a case of a hypothetical young thief. A 10-item scale was developed using unidimensional scaling and factor-analytic techniques. The study supports the earlier work on adults by Thibault and Walker (1978) and Tyler (1988) showing that for children too procedural justice concerns make a contribution to satisfaction with the outcomes and procedures of a case.     

Fairness and participation in evaluation procedures: Effects on task attitudes and performance

A laboratory study was conducted to examine the role of two components of participatory work evaluation procedures on fairness attitudes and work performance. Opportunity for influential opinion expression and knowledge of evaluation criteria were manipulated in a business simulation exercise. Thirty-eight male and 49 female undergraduates worked under a task evaluation procedure that either did or did not allow them to express their opinions to the evaluator. In addition, subjects either were or were not provided with specific information about the criteria to be used in making the performance evaluation, and they received either a favorable or an unfavorable outcome. Questionnaire responses indicated that influential opinion expression enhanced perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness independently of the outcome of the evaluation. Both knowledge of evaluation criteria and perceptions of evaluation fairness correlated with subsequent task performance. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to understanding the influence of procedural justice on attitudes and task behavior in organizational settings.     

The Impact of Distributive and Procedural Justice on Social Service Workers

The concepts of fairness and justice are embodied within the organizing principle of social justice. Although social justice is a primary focus of social work, social service workers are not always treated with fairness by their own employers. The results from a survey of 255 social service employees from a variety of agencies in Northwest Ohio indicate that distributive justice and procedural justice, two dimensions of organizational justice, are both significant predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, with procedural justice having two to three times the impact of distributive justice.     

Sentiments of justice

In empirical research on social inequality one question remains largely open: Why are certain types of social inequalities legitimate or not? Three theoretical approaches to this question are discussed: the universalist, the cultural, and the interactionist approach. The interactionist approach is defended: Sentiments of justice can be predicted or deduced from the system in which the actors are located. It is important to know whether actors have reasons to be interested in the system of interaction in question, including reasons for approving the rules and the mode of its functioning. At the same time, the existence of an unrestricted residue must also be recognized: With good reasons one group of individuals can find that a certain state of affairs is just, another group that it is unjust. Because divergences of opinion are inescapable, certain questions pertaining to the issue of social justice can only be resolved by the method of regulated political debate. Questions of social justice can in no way be resolved a priori.     

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.     

程序正义论——一种法社会学的反思

本文旨在从社会学的视角分析论证程序正义在我国的可适用性问题。通过分析程序正义在我国的价值,及对社会现状的剖析,揭示程序正义的形成障碍,进而对存在的问题探索较为稳妥的解决,建构了程序正义从观念到制度的立体体系。     

Procedural fairness and organizational commitment under conditions of growth and decline

We surveyed employees from seven relocating firms undergoing either an expansion or decline. Employees' judgments of procedural fairnes regarding the decision procedures used to implement the change showed a stronger effect on normative commitment for sites undergoing decline than for those undergoing growth. Procedural fairness concerns therefore seem to be more important to employees experiencing organizational decline. The finding has implications for research and for the management of organizational decline.     

Procedural decisions in intergroup conflict situations: The influence of hierarchical group membership

A review of research on procedural and distributive justice shows that whereas distributive justice research has examined people's actual choice of outcomes, procedural justice research has paid little attention to the investigation of people's actual choice of procedures. In the present paper, three experiments are presented, all investigating people's actual choice of procedures. In all three experiments, participants were in a middle-management position where their subordinates demanded an opportunity to voice their opinion, while their superiors demanded that the subordinates should not be allowed voice. In Experiments 1 and 2 it was found that participants who were induced to identify with the low hierarchical group (subordinates) allowed more voice than participants who were induced to identify with the high hierarchical group (superiors), but that the effect of hierarchical group membership was absent when maximizing performance (Experiment 1) or participative values (Experiment 2) were explicitly emphasized. In Experiment 3 it was found that the effect of hierarchical group membership on procedural decision making was also evident in persons who progressed from identifying with both hierarchical groups to identifying with one hierarchical group. In the discussion it is argued that cross-fertilization between the fields of procedural and distributive justice will deepen our understanding of social justice in general.     

Procedural justice in managerial selection: Identification of fairness determinants and associations of fairness perceptions

The study examined procedural fairness in managerial selection practices. A sample of professional managers were asked to make first, fairness judgments about managerial selection procedures in general; and second, specific fairness judgments based on their own previous experiences in applying for such positions. Using the general fairness ratings, the determinants of procedural fairness in selection were identified by the factor analysis technique. Five procedural factors (three process and two decision factors) accounted for 57.4% of the total variance. The factor scores derived from fairness ratings of specific selection procedures were then correlated with ratings of candidates' later organizational commitment, work satisfaction, and perceptions of organizational effectiveness. Results showed that process factors were significantly associated with candidate variables but decision factors were not. The findings were discussed in the context of current procedural justice theories.     

Employee concerns regarding self-managing work teams: A multidimensional justice perspective

The increase in the use of self-managing work teams in organizations has been accompanied by growing employee resistance and concern about what such dramatic changes mean to workers. Using an organizational justice perspective, this chapter identifies and examines employee concerns about the move to self-managing work teams in two Fortune 500 organizations. Employee fairness concerns regarding three types of justice—distributive, procedural, and interactional—are highlighted. Findings suggest that to address employee fairness concerns regarding the move to self-managing work teams, managers should act distributively, procedurally, and interactionally justly.[Self-managing work teams are] the right way and the only way to be productive.—Self-managing work team member in a Fortune 500 company     

Perfect justice procedures

Perfect justice procedures are such that rule out envy. At the core of such procedures lies the divide-and-choose procedure (one divides, the other chooses), which guarantees that individuals be satisfied with outcomes. The divide-and-choose principle is extended here ton individuals, to the sharing of nondividable goods, to job allocation, and to social satisfaction. The introduction of this principle into social psychology and sociology is proposed, and a comparison between equity and satisfaction is outlined.     

Privacy and procedural justice in organizations

This paper advances the argument that individual privacy is a procedural justice issue in organizations. A review of the organizational privacy literature supports this argument, and new directions for procedural justice research are suggested. In addition, it is argued that a focus on individual privacy highlights the political and paradoxical implications of procedural justice issues in organizations.