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).     

Prior Experiences as Temporal Frames of Reference in Social Justice: The Influence of Previous Fairness Experiences on Reactions to New and Old Supervisors

This paper focuses on the psychology of social change and social justice. Specifically, we focus on subordinates’ reactions to new and old supervisors, and we argue that in evaluating these different types of supervisors, subordinates may rely on prior fair or unfair experiences as temporal frames of reference. We further propose that a result of these frames of reference may be that previous fairness experiences have a bigger impact on subordinates’ reactions to subsequent neutral communications when an old rather than when a new supervisor is the source of that communication. Findings of two empirical studies indeed show that subordinates who had had fair experiences with a particular supervisor reacted more positively toward subsequent neutral messages when the communication was coming from the old supervisor rather than from the new supervisor. Subordinates who had had unfair experiences, however, reacted more negatively toward the communication when the source was the old rather than the new supervisor. Some evidence was also found for contrast effects such that people who react to a new supervisor may react more positively with the neutral demand from this authority figure when they have earlier experienced unfair as opposed to fair treatment by a different supervisory agent. These findings were obtained on subordinates’ satisfaction with the supervisors’ communication and their acceptance of the supervisor. Finally, we discuss the implications for the psychology of social change and social justice.     

Distributive and procedural justice: Multifaceted meanings and interrelations

Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice have taken on various interpretations. Even when the meaning assigned to each term has been specified and clarified, however, no single set of unique interpretations for each term allows for an unambiguous set of interrelations among the terms. That is, definitional clarity alone cannot resolve all of the questions that can be raised about how one construct is related to another. My discussion raises some of those questions to illustrate that point. A related point is that although an agreed upon set of conceptual defintions might allow for independence of the constructs and thus their independent manipulation, in practice—and as measured (rather than manipulated) variables—these constructs inevitably reveal considerable overlap. Several different reasons for this overlap are explored and the implications discussed.     

Altering Risk Following Child Maltreatment: Family and Friend Support as Protective Factors

Although the long-term effects of cumulative childhood maltreatment (CCM) include a variety of adverse consequences, many individuals are resilient following such experiences. This study explored the role of social support from family and friends in buffering long-term outcome following CCM, examining both main and moderating effects. Participants included 344 college aged men and women. Findings revealed strong promotive (main) effects of social support from family and friends that were associated with a reduction in symptoms of depression/anxiety and anger/hostility, regardless of the severity of abuse experienced. Support generally acted as a buffer (moderator) against negative outcomes for individuals with lower, and not higher, levels of CCM. The role of family support in moderating outcome was complex, particularly with respect to women’s later dating victimization; here family support functioned as a protective factor at low CCM, but as a vulnerability factor at high CCM.     

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.