Justice

Question 1

Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan (2005)

Distributive Justice Wave

Answer 1

Distributive Justice Wave - focus on the fairness of outcomes

• relative deprivation highlighted importance of social comparisons (i.e., black soldiers compared themselves to civilian counterparts, not other soldiers)
• expectations in social exchanges (Blau, 1964) judgments about exchange are relative to what others are getting
• Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) ratio of outputs to inputs, underpayment results in anger and overpayment results in guilt…and people are motivated to restore the balance
• Leventhal (there are other allocation norms (i.e., need based, equality based) than equity based…focused on how allocators adhere to distributive justice norms

Question 2

Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan (2005)

Procedural Justice Wave

Answer 2

What is fair depends on what is perceived to be fair (tie into leader influence?, social information processing?)

Leventhal (1980) highlighted the need to look at the fairness of procedures (consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, ethicality)

Greenberg & Folger (1983) and Folger & Greenberg (1985) introduced procedural justice to the field.

• -looked at voice vs. choice (having voice matters)
• -fair process effect
• -applied most widely to performance appraisals and compenstation

Lind & Tyler (1998) and Folger & Konovsky (1989) showed that distributive justice was more predictive of satisfaction with outcomes but procedures were more relevant to commitment and trust in the organization

Research on distributive X procedure revealed that fair procedures neutralizes unfair outcomes

Question 3

Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan (2005)

Interactional Justice Wave

Answer 3

Bies & Moag (1986)
Interactional Justice - people care about the way they are treated when org rules are enacted

Greenberg 1990 - tested Bies & Moag in the adequate explanation condition where truthfulness and justification were incorporated.

Later Greenberg called to split interactional into interpersonal (respect and propriety) and informational (truthfulness and justification)

Colquitt’s org justice (2001) measure and subsequent (2001) meta-analysis confirmed a four-factor model of justice

Question 4

Referent Cognitions Theory

Answer 4

Folger 1986b

Anger and resentment that accompany relative deprivation…What might have been.

Resentment highest when:

• a better state of alternative affairs easily could be imagined
• there is little hope that future outcomes will be better
• event ought to have occurred differently

Question 5

Fairness Theory

Answer 5

Folger & Cropanzano, 1998, 2001

Blame will be placed when the following are true:

1. Have I experienced injury?
2. Were there other feasible courses of action? Could he/she have acted differently?
3. Should he/she behaved differently? Were moral/ethical standards violated?

Question 6

Lind & Tyler (1988)

Answer 6

Group Value Model

Fair treatment will be inferred whenever procedures and interactions are in accord with fundamental values of the group.

Tyler (1989) surveyed Chicago residents about interactions with authorities and found?:

• bias suppression, benevolence, and interpersonal justice predicted fairness perceptions above fair outcomes.

Question 7

Tyler and Lind (1992), Lind et al. (1993)

Answer 7

Fairness Heuristics Theory

-people rely on a fairness heuristic to make judgments about whether to accept or reject the directives of people in positions of authority

Question 8

Hollensbe et al. (2008)

Answer 8

How do I assess if my supervisor and org are fair?

ENTITY based justice as opposed to EVENT based justice

For Orgs
-org support, flexibility, diversity, and turnover

For Sups
-support, flexibility, and traits

Attributes that people look at between org and sup interact (i.e., if boss if fair, org is fair)

Individuals’ affective state influences perceptions (is it a good day or bad day)…social information also plays a role (i.e., how coworkers are treated)

Question 9

Outcomes of unfairness

Answer 9

sabotage (Ambrose et al. 2002)
Theft (Greenberg, 1990)
Aggression (O’Leary-Kelly et al. 1996)

Question 10

Skarlicki & Folger (1997)

Answer 10

Retaliation

Retaliation was most likely when all three forms of justice were low (procedural, distributive, and interactional)

When pay and procedures were unfair, a supervisors’ care and concern for the employee mitigated retaliatory responses