Term
|
Definition
People's perceptions of fairness in organizations.
-People in the workplace expect to be treated fairly and respond negatively when this expectation appears to have been violated.- |
|
|
Term
| 3 Forms of Organizational Justice |
|
Definition
1. Distributive Justice
2. Procedural Justice
3. Interactional Justice |
|
|
Term
Form of Organizational Justice -
Distributive Justice |
|
Definition
-The perceived fairness of how outcomes are distributed.-
Equity Theory (prevailing approach from 60s-80s) focused on people's perceptions of the fairness of the relative distribution of outcomes (i.e. rewards) and inputs (i.e. contributions) between themselves and others. The theory claims that people who perceive these conditions as being unequal experience the negative state of inequity distress, which they are motivated to redress by adjusting their own or the other's outcome or inputs either behaviorally or cognitively.
-Explains why cuts in pay encourage factory workers to steal from their employers.
-Remains today's dominant conceptualization of distributive justice. |
|
|
Term
Form of Organizational Justice -
Procedural Justice |
|
Definition
-The perceived fairness of the manner in which outcomes are determined.-
To supplement distributive justice by accounting for the feelings of injustice people experience that cannot be captured in terms of relative outcomes and inputs.
The procedures believed to be fairest were ones that granted them a VOICE in proceedings - that is, the capacity to influence outcomes. |
|
|
Term
| Procedural Justice - Two key claims in the importance of voice in fair procedures. |
|
Definition
1. That fair procedures are important to people in contexts other than dispute resolution
2. That when people consider fair procedures in these contexts, they take into account factors in addition to voice. |
|
|
Term
Procedural Justice - Factors in addition to voice called:
"Rules to Fair Procedure" |
|
Definition
- Consistency: Procedures should be consistent across time and persons.
- Bias Suppression: Procedures should not be affected by personal self-interest or blind allegiance to existing preconceptions.
- Accuracy: Procedures should be based on completely accurate and valid information.
- Correctability: Procedures should include opportunities to modify and reverse decisions (i.e. appeals and grievances)
- Representativeness: Procedures should reflect the basic concerns, values and outlooks of the individuals who are affected by them.
- Ethicality: Procedures should be in keeping with the moral and ethical values held by the individuals involved. |
|
|
Term
| Procedural Justice - First important finding. |
|
Definition
Perceptions of fairness of procedures used in organizations predicted key job outcomes (i.e. job satisfaction) independently of the effects of perceptions of the fairness of those distributions themselves.
-Distributive justice was the primary predictor of workers' satisfaction with their raises, procedural justice was the primary predictor of people's feelings of commitment and trust.-
-Supporting the distinction between the two types of justice, responses fall into two independent categories, distributive factors (i.e. pay as based on job performance) and procedural factors (i.e. performance rating is based on accurate info).- |
|
|
Term
| Procedural Justice - Second important finding. |
|
Definition
| That procedural justice accounted for significantly more variance than distributive justice in people's assessments of fairness in organizations. In other words, fairness of procedures carried greater weight than fairness of outcome distributions. |
|
|
Term
Form of Organizational Justice -
Interactional Justice |
|
Definition
-That people consider not only the fairness of the outcome of distributions and the procedures that led to them, but also the manner in which these outcomes and procedures are communicated.-
People expect to have things explained to them adequately and respectfully and when they believe that this has not occurred they feel that they have been unfairly treated. These feelings, in turn, frequently trigger feelings of moral outrage and righteous indignation, sometimes resulting in retaliation against the source of these feelings. |
|
|
Term
| Interactional Justice - Why its popular today. |
|
Definition
First, procedural justice has a major effect on the way people respond to undesirable outcomes and procedures. Research has found that high levels of interactional justice mitigate employees' negative reactions to distributive and/or procedural justice.
Second, for the wide-spread interest in interactional justice is that practicing managers are in a good position to bring about these beneficial effects by virtue of the way they treat others in the workplace. - Lower-level managers might be bale to do very little about the distributions of rewards or the procedures used to determine them, but the capacity to influence workers' feelings is under their control. |
|
|
Term
| What must managers do to demonstrate high levels of interactional justice? |
|
Definition
1. Interpersonal Justice: Involves treating people with dignity and respect, showing that they care about the subordinate's personal feelings and welfare.
2. Informational Justice: Involves giving people clear and thorough explanations about the procedures used to determine outcomes. |
|
|
Term
| The main principle of Organizational Justice |
|
Definition
| Using fair procedures (as defined by conceptualizations of procedural justice) and communicating them in a fair manner (i.e. by sharing information in a way that demonstrates dignity and respect) enhances individual and organizational outcomes. |
|
|
Term
| Effects of procedural justice |
|
Definition
People respond positively to organizational decisions to the extent that they have a say in determining them, even if they cannot control the outcomes directly.
-People respond positively to organizational decisions to the extent that they have been made using the six procedural rules. |
|
|
Term
| Beneficial organizational effects of procedural justice. |
|
Definition
-Employees' attitudes toward their companies' appraisal systems are correlated positively to their beliefs about the opportunities they have to express their own viewpoints, even when controlling for the outcomes of those systems.
-Giving adequate notice and basing judgments on sound evidence also enhance employees' perceptions of performance appraisal systems and the decisions resulting from them. |
|
|
Term
| Predictive Two-Factor Model |
|
Definition
Procedural Justice is predictive of ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT.
Organizational Justice is predictive of JOB SATISFACTION. |
|
|
Term
| Procedural variables account for employees' reactions to org. phenomena. |
|
Definition
-Employees' acceptance of their companies' strategic plans is enhanced to the extent that they are able to engage in bilateral communication and are given an opportunity to refute ideas.-
Similarly, personnel policies, such as procedures used to screen employees for drug use are better accepted to the degree that they incorporate various procedural elements, such as accuracy, allowing for corrections, and providing opportunities for voice. |
|
|
Term
| Association between procedural justice and various forms of extra-role behavior. |
|
Definition
-Organizational citizenship behavior directed t both individuals and organizations was predicted strongly by perceptions of procedural justice.
-Procedural justice also predictive of "taking charge" - discretionary behavior aimed at bringing positive change to one's organization, such as by making useful suggestions for innovation.
-Employees' positive perceptions of procedural justice also have been linked to extra-role behaviors aimed at customers.
-Together, these findings are consistent with the notion that employees who believe that their organizations have instituted fair procedures attempt to repay them by going above and beyond the call of duty to help them. |
|
|
Term
| Adverse benefits of procedural justice. |
|
Definition
-Low levels of organizational justice are linked to prolonged negative emotional states, such as stress and pathophysiological changes that are associated with health problems.
-Adverse health effects are more negative when multiple sources of injustice are perceived instead of just a single source. |
|
|
Term
| Effects of Interactional Justice |
|
Definition
-People better accept organizational outcomes to the extent that they have been treated with high levels of interactional justice in the course of explaining those outcomes.
-Theft by employees - workers express dissatisfaction by stealing twice as much |
|
|
Term
| Adverse organizational effects of interactional injustice. |
|
Definition
| -In study where participants were paid less than expected and given an opportunity to retaliate -- retaliation was lower when the underpayment was explained using high levels of interpersonal justice and high levels of informational justice. Mitigated participants' beliefs about unfairness, leading them to accept outcomes and diminish motivation to retaliate. |
|
|
Term
| Adverse health effects of interactional injustice |
|
Definition
High levels of stress were found to be associated with perceptions of interactional injustice.
However, just as adverse reactions to procedural injustice are exacerbated when combined with distributive injustice, as noted earlier, so too are adverse reactions to procedural injustice exacerbated when combined with interactional injustice.
-Low levels of interactional justice - both the interpersonal and informational forms - contribute to adverse organizational effects. And when combined with low levels of procedural justice, low levels of interactional justice also take their toll on the physical and mental well-being of employees. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Procedural justice's effects on the acceptance of organizational outcomes are qualified by the valence of the outcomes involved.
Specifically, fair procedures matter more to people when outcomes are negative than when they are positive - an effect known as the:
outcome X process interaction. |
|
|
Term
| Outcome X Process Interaction |
|
Definition
Employees receiving positive outcomes tend to be so pleased with what they got that they are unconcerned with how they got it. However, concerns about procedures become salient when outcomes are negative.People feel it is inappropriate to express their dissatisfaction with undesirable outcomes for fear of appearing to be "sore losers" but that its appropriate to ask questions about "how" outcomes are determined.
Although procedural justice might matter more when outcomes are negative than when positive, this applies to people's acceptance of organizational outcomes, but not to organizations themselves. Apparently, organizations that use fair procedures send strong messages about their underlying commitment to fairness which enhances employees' commitment to the organization regardless of the outcomes they receive from it. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If the granting of voice enhances acceptance of outcomes, then it may be assumed that more voice promotes greater acceptance. This assumption is FALSE.
In experiment where participants were given voice, expressed greater satisfactions with decisions over which they had ANY degree of voice than decisions over which they had no voice at all. However, increasing levels of voice had no effects whatsoever.
Additional evidence suggests that under some conditions high levels of voice may reduce satisfaction with outcomes. When leaders gave participants surprisingly high levels of voice, participants believed the leader was behaving inappropriately by relinquishing his/her power and were less satisfied than with moderate voice levels. |
|
|
Term
| Voice and Social Sensitivity must be Sincere |
|
Definition
Granting employees a voice in the making of decisions leads them to believe that their voice will be listened to, enhancing the chances that their opinions will be accepted, even if they are not. Accordingly, employees who believe that the voice they are offered is insincere will not be satisfied with the resulting outcomes.
In fact, they may be more dissatisfied than they would be if their expectations were never raised in the first place-a phenomenon called "frustration effect".
The practice of falsely creating the illusion of voice in the workplace is considered unwise as it may backfire, leading employees to reject not only the outcomes, but the organization itself. |
|
|
