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     

Justice on the road to change in the people's republic of China

Dengist reform programs, including mandated changes in the operation of Chinese industrial enterprises, depart radially from previous Maoist practices and ideologies. With these changes, issues of distributive justice have become extremely salient in China. We explore shifting norms regarding distributive justice in China, with a focus on the conceptions of, and implications for, practicing managers. After first reviewing the pertinent literature, we present some original data gathered from Chinese managers in 1986 and in 1989, comparing them to data gathered from managers in the United States.     

Five Areas of Value Judgement in Local Adaptation to Climate Change

Abstract

Climate change has generated several new theoretical and policy challenges, many of which concern how local communities ought to adapt to a warmer climate. This paper identifies and analyses a number of value judgements that come to the fore as local authorities adapt to climate change. Five categories of judgements are discussed: evaluation (how should the consequences of adaptation be evaluated?), timing (when should adaptive action be taken?), distribution (how should the benefits and burdens of adaptation be distributed?), procedures (who should be involved in adaptation decision making?), and goal conflicts (how should goal conflicts in adaptation be dealt with?). For each category, further research is needed to assist decision making at the local level.     

Introduction: economic security,globalization and governance

Abstract

This introductory article examines different approaches to conceptualizing economic security by drawing on the broader social science literature beyond realism/neorealism. Arguing that traditional conceptions of economic security that see economics as a source, or instrument of state power are insufficient, it draws on a growing literature that looks directly at the economic roots of conflicts, particularly those arising from the manner in which capitalist production is organized in distinct settings. While the paper identifies a range of ways in which scholars, policy practitioners and communities think about economic security depending on the particular circumstances different states and societies find themselves in, the paper, nonetheless, argues for a notion of economic security that also emphasizes issues of justice/fairness and distributive equity. Under conditions of globalization, it is important for us to think of the needs of those made insecure by prevailing systems of market governance but in ways that do not undermine the integrity of the market nor sanction protection for chronically uncompetitive firms. Drawing on insights from International Political Economy and Economic Sociology, the paper suggests one useful way of conceptualizing economic security under conditions of globalization: that of ensuring a low probability of damage to (a) the income and consumption streams that are deemed appropriate for individual well-being; (b) the income-generating potential of an economy; and (c) some minimal level of distributive equity. To this end, appropriately designed national, regional and global institutions can function as mechanisms of governance in the interests of economic security. The rest of the papers in this Special Issue provide empirical case studies drawn from East Asia on many of the points raised in this introduction.     

Viewing Things Differently: The Dimensions of Public Perceptions of Police Legitimacy

Legitimacy (or “the right to exercise power”) is now an established concept in criminological analysis, especially in relation to policing. Substantial empirical evidence shows the importance of legitimacy in securing law‐abiding behavior and cooperation from citizens. Yet adequate theorization has lagged behind empirical evidence, and there has been a conflation of legitimacy with the cognate concepts of “trust” and of “obligation to obey the law.” By drawing on the work of Beetham (1991) and others (e.g., Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012 ), this study tests the hypothesis that the contents of the multiple dimensions of police legitimacy comprise procedural fairness, distributive fairness, lawfulness, and effectiveness. The study also investigates the relative influence of legitimacy and feelings of obligation on citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the police. Using data from London, the results substantiate the hypothesized dimensions of police legitimacy. In addition, legitimacy was found to exhibit both a direct influence on cooperation that is independent of obligation and an indirect influence that flows through people's felt obligations to obey the police. Implications for future research are discussed.     

Understanding gender differences in distributive and procedural justice

Gender differences in treatment and in judgments of distributive and procedural justice were examined. Three hundred nine litigants who had been involved in arbitrated auto negligence lawsuits responded to exit surveys. Two mechanisms by which gender might influence justice perceptions were explored. First, we examined whether a “chivalry bias” might be operating, in which the procedures systematically favor women over men. If such biases occur, women might feel they had been treated more fairly because of egocentric biases. Results provided only modest support for the chivalry bias. While women received slightly better awards and perceived somewhat more control than men, these differences had no effect on perceptions of distributive or procedural justice. Second, we examined whether men and women differ systematically in the factors they use as indicators of distributive and procedural justice. On the basis of group-value theory we predicted that women might place more emphasis on standing or on outcome favorability. The study revealed that men and women did differ in how they defined distributive justice, with women placing more emphasis on their perceived standing and on their perceptions of the favorability of their outcomes. There were no substantial gender differences in how procedural justice was defined. Results are interpreted in terms of how women might be responding to insecurity about facing a justice system historically dominated by men. An erratum to this article is available at .     

Ex Ante and Ex Post Allocation of Risk of Illegality: Regulatory Sources of Contractual Failure and Issues of Corrective and Distributive Justice

The pursuit of welfare objectives through contract law rules could be exemplified in the case of illegality and subsequent nullity sanctions attached to a contract that violates certain regulatory rules. The effectiveness of contractual allocation of risk of illegality (regulatory prohibitions), therefore, varies, depending on which contract theory prevails. Maintaining the validity of a prohibited and failed contract, and allocation of the relevant risks, is crucially dependent on whether we adhere to a welfare or rights-based theory of contract. In this paper we argue that impossibility of ex ante and ex post allocation of risk of illegality is the logical outcome of the adherence to a welfare theory of contract law, as maintaining even a minimum validity of the failed contract would result in some welfare losses. According to this approach unjust enrichment could not be rectified because it would diminish the optimal enforcement of welfare objectives. On the other hand, and despite such prohibition and illegality, a rights-based theory would resist opportunistic and rent-seeking behaviour and would ensure the validity of the contract and just allocation of losses and gains, which arise from the failure of the prohibited contract.     

The role of procedural justice in the allocation of limited resources: A West German perspective

Following the experimental design used by Barrett-Howard and Tyler (1986), this study examines the importance given by West German university students to procedural and distributive justice allocation decision making. After reading one of eight scenarios in which there was a limited resource to be allocated, the subjects answered questions concerning the importance and meaning of justice. For the most part, the results correspond to previous U.S. findings of the importance of procedural justice and its definition across various allocation settings. However, the West German students placed greater importance on having mechanisms for correcting inadequate decisions than did their American counterparts. Beyond the design of the initial U.S. study, however, the West German students were asked in an open-ended format to discuss their concerns in making the allocation decision. Nearly half of the unprompted responses centered around justice issues.     

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.     

Cohen vs. Rawls on justice and equality

G.A. Cohen criticizes Rawls’s account of justice because his difference principle permits inequalities that reflect the relative scarcity of different skills and natural abilities. Instead of viewing the ‘basic structure’ as the primary subject of justice, Cohen argues that individual citizens should cultivate an egalitarian ethos, which would enable a just society to dispense with the use of incentive payments to induce individuals to use their talents in socially ideal ways. This study examines Cohen’s critique, including his rejection of ‘incentives,’ and vindicates Rawls’s approach. Ultimately, Cohen’s argument fails to grapple with the moral pluralism that characterizes modern, democratic societies, whereas Rawls’s theory is constructed to accommodate such pluralism.