Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice.

This study tested a model of survivor reactions to reorganization, which incorporated multiple predictors and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. The 3 justice types had different correlates: all 4 antecedents (employee input, victim support, implementation, and communication quality) predicted interpersonal fairness, implementation and communication quality were associated with informational fairness, and employee input was the sole predictor of procedural justice. Procedural justice was strongly related to all 4 outcome variables, and interpersonal and informational justice added unique variance to the prediction of trust in management. The reorganization effort was still predictive of employee outcomes, although primarily through procedural justice approximately 1 year after its completion. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: An examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions.

Most organizational justice research takes a cross-sectional approach to examining the relationship between perceived fairness and individuals' attitudes. This study examines the effect of procedural and distributive justice over time. It is suggested that individuals acquire more information and experience with procedures and outcomes over time. These changes in information and experience affect the influence of procedural and distributive justice on organizational attitudes. Faculty perceptions of tenure and promotion decisions were assessed 3 times (preallocation, short-term postallocation, long-term postallocation) over a 2-year period. Results generally supported the hypotheses. Procedural justice was most influential prior to and soon after outcome decisions were made. Distributive justice was most influential 1 year later. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Moderating Effect of Negative Affectivity in the Procedural Justice-Job Satisfaction Relation.

We examined the potential moderating effect of negative affectivity in the relation between perceptions of procedural justice and job satisfaction in two studies. In the first study, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of 232 individuals working for a Canadian public-sector organization that was being partially privatized. In the second study, we conducted a two-wave panel study of 173 university students participating in a co-operative education work term. In both studies, we found that the relation between procedural justice and job satisfaction was stronger for those who were low in negative affectivity than for those who were high in negative affectivity. These findings support the notion that employee dispositions influence the manner in which organizational factors are perceived. In addition, these findings suggest that fair procedures do not uniformly result in positive organizational outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Realpolitik versus fair process: Moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions.

Three studies examined the effects of perceived procedural justice and the favorability of a group-level outcome on the endorsement of a group-level decision and the evaluation of the authority responsible for the decision. Results showed that, contrary to findings usually seen with individual-level decisions, collective outcome favorability was more important than procedural justice in influencing the endorsement of the decision. Furthermore, increased identification with the group reduced the importance of procedural justice but accentuated the importance of collective outcome favorability. With regard to the evaluation of the authority, the results were similar to those obtained in individual-level decisions: Procedural fairness mattered more than collective outcome favorability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects.

The current article explores status as an antecedent of procedural fairness effects (the findings that perceived procedural fairness affects people's reactions, e.g., their relational judgments). On the basis of the literature, the authors proposed that salience of the general concept of status leads people to be more attentive to procedural fairness information and that, as a consequence, stronger procedural fairness effects should be found. In correspondence with this hypothesis, Experiment 1 showed stronger procedural fairness effects on people's relational treatment evaluations in a status salient condition compared with a control condition. Experiment 2 replicated this effect and, in further correspondence with the hypothesis, showed that status salience led to increased cognitive accessibility of fairness concerns. Implications for the psychology of procedural justice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A closer look at the relationship between justice perceptions and union participation.

In this study, a series of nested models was tested to assess the extent to which the relationship between process-related justice and union participation is mediated by perceived union support and union commitment. Members of a steelworkers' local (N=615) participated in the study. Fit indices most strongly supported a fully mediated model. Unlike previous research, process-related justice was operationalized as 2 distinct variables: procedural and interactional justice. Interactional justice was found to have a substantially stronger relationship with support perceptions than procedural justice. Results also indicated union support accounted for a greater amount of unique variance in union commitment than perceived union instrumentality. The results are discussed in relation to trust theory and the generalization of organization science across different types of organizations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.

This study explores the dimensionality of organizational justice and provides evidence of construct validity for a new justice measure. Items for this measure were generated by strictly following the seminal works in the justice literature. The measure was then validated in 2 separate studies. Study 1 occurred in a university setting, and Study 2 occurred in a field setting using employees in an automobile parts manufacturing company. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a 4-factor structure to the measure, with distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice as distinct dimensions. This solution fit the data significantly better than a 2- or 3-factor solution using larger interactional or procedural dimensions. Structural equation modeling also demonstrated predictive validity for the justice dimensions on important outcomes, including leader evaluation, rule compliance, commitment, and helping behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction: A multilevel investigation.

This study examined the differential effects of 4 types of organizational justice on daily job satisfaction at between- and within-individual levels. Specifically, the authors predicted that interpersonal justice and informational justice would exhibit meaningful daily variations and would have direct impacts on individuals’ job satisfaction on a daily basis. They further theorized that distributive justice and procedural justice at a between-person level would moderate the within-person relationships. The authors used hierarchical linear modeling to test their hypotheses with a sample of 231 full-time employees in Hong Kong over the course of 25 working days. The results showed that both daily interpersonal and informational justice were positively related to daily job satisfaction. As hypothesized, between-individual distributive justice moderated the relationship between daily interpersonal justice and daily job satisfaction, and between-individual procedural justice moderated the relationship between daily informational justice and daily job satisfaction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and judgments of an authority's responsibility.

Fairness theory (R. Folger & R. Cropanzano, 1998, 2001) postulates that, particularly in the face of unfavorable outcomes, employees judge an organizational authority to be more responsible for their outcomes when the authority exhibits lower procedural fairness. Three studies lent empirical support to this notion. Furthermore, 2 of the studies showed that attributions of responsibility to the authority mediated the relationship between the authority's procedural fairness and employees' reactions to unfavorable outcomes. The findings (a) provide support for a key assumption of fairness theory, (b) help to account for the pervasive interactive effect of procedural fairness and outcome favorability on employees' attitudes and behaviors, and (c) contribute to an emerging trend in justice research concerned with how people use procedural fairness information to make attributions of responsibility for their outcomes. Practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research also are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust.

Organizational justice researchers recognize the important role organization context plays in justice perceptions, yet few studies systematically examine contextual variables. This article examines how 1 aspect of context--organizational structure--affects the relationship between justice perceptions and 2 types of social exchange relationships, organizational and supervisory. The authors suggest that under different structural conditions, procedural and interactional justice will play differentially important roles in determining the quality of organizational social exchange (as evidenced by perceived organizational support [POS]) and supervisory social exchange (as evidenced by supervisory trust). In particular, the authors hypothesized that the relationship between procedural justice and POS would be stronger in mechanistic organizations and that the relationship between interactional justice and supervisory trust would be stronger in organic organizations. The authors' results support these hypotheses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness.

The present research examined the effect of leaders' procedural fairness and perceived charisma on an important organizational process: cooperation. Both charisma and procedural fairness were predicted to have a positive effect on cooperation, and procedural fairness and charisma were predicted to interact such that their effects are stronger alone than in conjunction. Results from a scenario experiment, a cross-sectional survey, and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. Results from the laboratory study also showed that the interactive effect of leader charisma and procedural fairness on cooperation was mediated by their interactive effect on the sense of group belongingness. It is concluded that leader charisma and procedural fairness may engender cooperation because they appeal to relational concerns. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The role of authority power in explaining procedural fairness effects.

Building on fairness heuristic theory, fairness theory, and trust development models, we argue that unfairly enacted procedures decrease followers' trust in the authority particularly when authorities have high power over their followers. Moreover, we expected trust to mediate procedural fairness effects on followers' attitudes (authorities' legitimacy and charisma attributed to authorities) and organizational citizenship behavior. Procedural fairness effects on these variables, as mediated by trust, should therefore also be stronger when authority power is high. The results of a single- and multisource field study and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. These studies support the role of authority power as a theoretically and practically relevant moderator of procedural fairness effects and show that its effectiveness is explained through trust in authorities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Applicants' reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: The effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement.

This study examined several unexplored issues in research on applicants' perceptions of fairness. First, the study explored possible differences between procedural violations that advantage individuals vs. those that are disadvantageous. Second, the study examined the complex relationship between process and outcome fairness across the stages of the selection process. A longitudinal, simulated selection process was used; procedural justice was manipulated by varying the consistency of test administration, and distributive justice was manipulated by varying perceptions of equity. Results indicate that favorable rule violations are perceived similar to rule satisfaction and that a complex and dynamic relationship exists between process and outcome fairness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Identifying a missing link between participation and satisfaction: The mediating role of procedural justice perceptions.

This study examined the mediating role of procedural justice in the relationship between participation and satisfaction. The study design used 3 possible goal-setting methods—assigned, self-set, and participative. A total of 235 undergraduate students participated in 3 trials of a class scheduling task. Structural equation modeling of the predicted model showed that perceived participation affected satisfaction through effects on the perceived fairness of participation in decision-making procedures. Tests of an alternative model further supported the hypothesized relationship. The results suggested that perceived justice may be responsible, at least in part, for participation effects on satisfaction and may provide an explanation for inconsistencies in prior participation studies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders.

Tested the hypothesis that the procedures used by leaders to allocate outcomes have an impact on leadership evaluations that is independent of outcome level or outcome fairness. Two studies tested this hypothesis within the context of 132 college students' evaluations of teachers, and two tested it within the context of citizen evaluations of political leaders; Ss in the latter 2 studies were 50 residents of a university town and 156 undergraduates. The procedural justice hypothesis was strongly supported by all 4 studies. In each, strong procedural influences on evaluation were found, influences that were independent of outcome level or outcome fairness. In addition, in both surveys of naturally occurring evaluations, variations in procedural fairness had a much greater impact on leadership endorsement than did variations in outcome level, outcome satisfaction, or outcome fairness. Findings suggest that in experimental settings, Ss can be sensitive to both outcomes and procedures. In natural settings, however, individuals focus on procedures rather than outcomes in forming their evaluations of leaders. (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness.

On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, it is argued in this article that people especially need fairness when they are reminded about aspects of their lives that make them uncertain. It is therefore proposed that thinking about uncertainty should make fairness a more important issue to people. The findings of 3 experiments support this line of reasoning: Asking (vs. not asking) participants 2 questions that solicited their thoughts and feelings of being uncertain led to stronger effects of perceived procedural fairness on participants' affective reactions toward the way they were treated. It is argued that these findings suggest that fairness matters to people especially when they are trying to deal with things that make them uncertain. An implication of the current findings therefore may be that fairness is important to people because it gives them an opportunity to manage uncertain aspects of their lives. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice.

Electronic workplace surveillance is raising concerns about privacy and fairness. Integrating research on electronic performance monitoring, procedural justice, and organizational privacy, the author proposes a framework for understanding reactions to technologies used to monitor and control employees. To test the framework's plausibility, temporary workers performed computer/Web-based tasks under varying levels of computer surveillance. Results indicated that monitoring job-relevant activities (relevance) and affording those who were monitored input into the process (participation) reduced invasion of privacy and enhanced procedural justice. Moreover, invasion of privacy fully mediated the effect of relevance and partially mediated the effect of participation on procedural justice. The findings are encouraging for integrating theory and research on procedural justice and organizational privacy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Procedural justice in resolving family disputes: Implications for childhood bullying.

High levels of family conflict and poor family conflict resolution strategies are often associated with externalizing behaviors in children, including the behavior of bullying. Through family interactions, parents have the opportunity to convey a variety of messages to the child. Some of these messages are sent through the child’s appraisal of procedural justice, which refers to the judgments of fairness directed at the process by which a conflict is resolved. The current study investigated the relationship between appraisals of procedural justice in family conflict resolution and bullying among middle-school students. A sample of 1910 sixth through eighth graders completed a self-report survey on school violence. Structural equation modeling revealed a significant relationship in which higher appraisals of procedural justice during family conflict resolution were associated with lower frequencies of bullying by the child. Furthermore, this relationship was partially mediated by the internalization of the parent’s conduct during the conflict resolution process. The current study extended the research literature addressing the relevance of procedural justice in child development. Implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.

The field of organizational justice continues to he marked by several important research questions, including the size of relationships among justice dimensions, the relative importance of different justice criteria, and the unique effects of justice dimensions on key outcomes. To address such questions, the authors conducted a meta-analytic review of 183 justice studies. The results suggest that although different justice dimensions are moderately to highly related, they contribute incremental variance explained in fairness perceptions. The results also illustrate the overall and unique relationships among distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice and several organizational outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, evaluation of authority, organizational citizenship behavior, withdrawal, performance). These findings are reviewed in terms of their implications for future research on organizational justice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

"All in a Day's Work": How Follower Individual Differences and Justice Perceptions Predict OCB Role Definitions and Behavior.

The authors draw on theories of social exchange and prosocial behavior to explain how employee perceptions of procedural justice and individual differences in reciprocation wariness, empathic concern, and perspective taking function jointly as determinants of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) role definitions and behavior. As hypothesized, empirical findings from a field study show both direct and interactive effects of procedural justice perceptions and individual differences on OCB role definition. In turn, OCB role definitions not only predict OCB directly but also moderate the effects of procedural justice perceptions on OCB. The authors explore the implications of these findings for practice as well as research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)