Organizational Justice

International perspectives and conceptual advances

Carolina Moliner, Russell Cropanzano, Vicente Martínez-Tur, Carolina Moliner, Russell Cropanzano, Vicente Martínez-Tur

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317300274
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Psicología
• Sous-sujet: Historia y teoría en psicología

Organizational justice – the perception of workplace fairness – can bring important benefits not only to the health and well-being of individual employees but also to the productivity of organizations themselves. This timely new collection, with contributions from leading researchers from around the world, considers organizational justice in an era when globalization has resulted in rapid organizational change, greater job insecurity, and increasing worker stress.

Both comprehensive and cutting edge, the book initially considers what we mean by organizational justice in its relationship to self-interest, social identity, and personal moral codes. But moving beyond the perceptions of individuals, the book also reflects the increasing interest in the roles of teammates and leaders in creating organizational justice. There follow chapters on the negative results of perceived injustice, specifically around physical and mental employee health, as well as its deleterious impact on organizational productivity.

Providing a definitive, state-of-the-art overview of the field, the book not only clarifies the key concepts and ideas that inform organizational justice but also explores their importance for today's organizations, managers, and employees. Including a final section that both suggests new areas for research and critically reflects on the field itself, this will be essential reading for researchers and students across business and management, organizational studies, HRM, and organizational and work psychology.

1

Challenges for an organizational justice research agenda

Carolina Moliner, Vicente Martínez-Tur, and Russell Cropanzano

Research on organizational justice has increased in the last five decades with relevant implications for knowledge and practice. In the more than 50 years since the pioneering researcher John Stacey Adams (1965) published his seminal research facilitating the use and transfer of justice issues to the investigation and understanding of organizational life, subsequent efforts have confirmed organizations as relevant socio-technical contexts in which justice plays a critical role. Traditionally, organizational justice has been defined as the extent to which an aspect of the organizational environment is perceived as fair, according to a certain rule or standard (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). It includes the perceived fairness of received outcomes (e.g., salary) or distributive justice, the fairness of formal processes in the decision making about the distribution of outcomes (e.g., representation of parties) or procedural justice, the quality of the interpersonal treatment (e.g., dignity) or interpersonal justice, and the information provided (e.g., explanation) or informational justice (Colquitt & Rodell, 2015). Each type of justice has a significant influence on workers’ attitudes and behaviors (Colquitt et al., 2013).

The impact of justice is pervasive. Today, hundreds of millions of people work around the world. Although they are embedded in different cultural values and experience very different working conditions – from situations of poverty to the sophistication of skilled workers in creative jobs – justice emerges as a set of norms underlying the decent work concept and explaining in part well-being and performance (Shao, Rupp, Skarlicki, & Jones, 2013). Organizations can become fairer and ultimately become more productive if they administer just outcomes, use just procedures, and so forth (Cropanzano, Fortin, & Kirk, 2015). Over the years, progress in research has been carried out in different directions, opening the door to new challenges for future efforts. These challenges are represented in the present book in four ways.

First, the way organizational justice research conceives the human being is a persistent challenge. Simplifying a bit, we can say that there are two main frameworks regarding assumptions about humans. In one of these views, achieving personal and social outcomes motivates the worker from an instrumental point of view. On this view, justice is important only because it allows an individual to maximize self-interest in the long run (for a defense of this position, see Gillespie & Greenberg, 2005). By contrast, another perspective pays attention to morality motivations and sacrifices. The perspective argues that people behave justly because they have internalized moral norms that guide their actions (Folger & Skarlicki, 2008).

Second, the consideration of the team level opens opportunities to expand our knowledge. The investigation of justice at the team level has evolved in parallel with scientific advances at the individual level. Researchers have identified two types of unit-level justice. The first of these, justice climate, refers to the manner in which a team is treated by others, such as a supervisor. The second, peer justice, refers to the manner in which team members treat one another (Li & Cropanzano, 2009). Focusing attention on these two aspects of team-level justice have proven very promising.

Third, injustice is prominent in predicting behaviors, attitudes, and health. Humans are especially sensitive to negative events, and plans to manage injustice are welcome in order to achieve healthy and productive organizations. Considerable evidence has shown that individuals report greater well-being and less work stress when they are treated fairly (e.g., Cropanzano, Goldman, & Benson, 2005; Cropanzano & Wright, 2011).

Finally, there is a tension between the proposals of new constructs, on the one hand, and the alerting against the excessive proliferation of constructs, on the other. Despite the contributions of organizational justice research, this is a very real concern. Indeed, even in this brief overview, we have identified four types of justice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational), each of which can be represented by two unit-level constructs (justice climate and peer justice). Probably, this situation reflects the maturity of our field and the necessity to establish rigorous criteria for the evaluation of redundancy in justice constructs. In the following sections, we summarize these four challenges and how they are considered in the chapters of the present book.

Self-interest and moral order: assumptions about human beings in justice research

Individual self-interest is a constituent part of economics and has been one of that field’s prominent assumptions for at least a century (Hodgson, 2014). Theoretical approaches such as expected utility theory and rational choices (Friedman & Savage, 1948) have underlined the idea that humans are motivated by the maximization of their own benefits. Self-interest is also present in some psychological approaches. For example, the pleasure principle of Freud (1900) and the pursuit of positive reinforcement from the environment in social learning theories (Bandura, 1977) show a view of humans in which seeking individual satisfaction is the principal motive for volitional behavior. Despite the pervasiveness of self-interest thinking, human behavior cannot be reduced to this single motive (Turillo, Folger, Lavelle, Umphress, & Gee, 2002). We have also been able to build and live in complex groups in which communication has permitted the creation of moral bonds in which motives such as cooperation and empathy coexist with self-interest (Folger & Salvador, 2008; Hodgson, 2014). This capacity of cooperation is probably associated with our evolutionary history and has permitted the survival of humans over time (Kelly, 2004). It requires moral duties in social interactions and, consequently, restrictions in self-interest motivations in order to facilitate the sustainability of the group/society (Folger & Skarlicki, 2008). Therefore, a complex coexistence between self-interest and morality underlies human behavior (Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2005).

This duality between self-interest and morality has been transferred to the investigation of organizational justice. Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, and Schminke (2001) differentiated among three roads to organizational justice: (a) instrumental models in which individuals care about justice in order to achieve personal benefits; (b) interpersonal models in which justice permits the creation of close relations among actors; and (c) moral principles in which justice is important to humans in its own right. The first two models refer to calculus in which gains and losses (instrumental) or social benefits – such as belonging to a desirable group (interpersonal models) – are considered. By contrast, moral principles reflect the “right thing to do” beyond individual benefits (Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2005). Although research on justice tends to focus the attention on models that reinforce instrumental and interpersonal aspects, moral principles receive increasing attention. In this present volume, our contributors discuss these ideas in a number of chapters.

The chapter of the present book authored by Folger and Stein (“Deonance: expanding the concept”) refers to human limitations – not only in our cognitive capacities (boundary rationality) but also in our autonomy (bounded autonomy). As a consequence of these limitations, our social context circumscribes our liberties. There are constraints in our social life defining what is appropriate and inappropriate for behavior. These authors use the concept of “ought forces” to understand these often sharp restrictions. Ought forces include social disapproval and its internalization but also the freedom of the individual to choose among behaviors that are within the permitted limits. Building on this logic, Folger and Stein introduce the term “deonance” to refer to behaviors based on a sense of responsibility rather than maximization of own benefits. Therefore, we can conclude that the self-interest motivation in decision making is constrained by the actions that are prohibited or permitted in the culture of the organization that defines what is right and desirable in itself.

Paddock also refers to the concept of culture in her chapter (“Managerial motives for just action and managers’ cultural logic: taking a CuPS approach”) to understand the motives of managers in displaying just actions. Again, the total freedom of individuals (i.e., managers) is questioned. She proposes that the adherence of managers to fair motives differs as a function of the culture in which they are embedded. To do so, Paddock incorporates organizational culture to the well-known Person × Situation interactionism, differentiating between three types of culture: dignity, honor, and face. In a culture of dignity, it is assumed that each individual has an intrinsic value, an internal worth that guides his/her life regardless of the opinion of others. In a culture of honor, the worth of the person is both internal and external. Although honor is important from the perspective of the focal person, the opinion of others (the society) is critical, for example in terms of acknowledgment and recognition. Finally, in a culture of face, respectability is connected to the position of the person in the organization or the society. Paddock proposes a number of hypotheses in which the duality between self-interest and morality is considered. Interpretation of both moral order and calculus related with social exchange and reciprocity depends on the degree to which managers find themselves in a specific culture.

In their chapter (“The ‘who’ of organizational justice: source effects on justice judgments”), Marques, Patient, and Cojuharenco focus attention on the specific characteristics of sources of justice. The source of justice is any agent of the organization (e.g., a manager who decides about the distribution of resources). They propose that overall fairness is related to specific characteristics of the justice agent. These characteristics improve our understanding of general perceptions of fairness beyond distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. People evaluate justice considering not only the actions but also the particularities of the agent. Therefore, the same action can be evaluated as more or less just depending on the agent characteristics. The duality between self-interest versus morality is present in explaining why source characteristics matter. Characteristics of the justice agent can stimulate self-interest motives of recipients because positive outcomes are anticipated (e.g., taking into account the previous trajectory of the justice agent). In addition, benefits for the justice recipient could be social, according to the group value models and other theoretical approaches. Characteristics of the justice agent can facilitate the satisfaction of needs for belongingness and status within the group. Finally, characteristics of agents can be associated with deontic and moral facets. Recipients can consider characteristics of the justice agent (e.g., his/her integrity) regardless of the tangible or social benefits (and even assuming sacrifices).

In sum, the investigation of organizational justice describes a complex view of human behavior in which maximization of benefits (tangible and social) and self-interest coexist with morality. Therefore, behavior in organizational contexts cannot be restricted to any one motive. Over time, humans have been able to create sophisticated social systems and motivations that are transferred to work organizations. Research on justice requires the elaboration of adequate concepts to capture this complex reality (e.g., deonance) and the examination of factors such as cultural values and characteristics of justice agents to understand the role of instrumental versus morality motives. The aforementioned duality is pervasive, and it is present in other chapters of this book. Nevertheless, we have chosen the three chapters we have commented on in this section because they are especially illustrative to understanding the role of self-interest versus morality from different perspectives.

Justice and particularities of teams

Research on justice at the team level has increasingly received attention. In fact, during the last 15 years, the interest in justice perceptions has evolved from the traditional individual level to a multi-level perspective in which the work unit has achieved a prominent role (Li & Cropanzano, 2009). The shift toward team-based structures has facilitated this interest in justice at the team level. Distribution of repetitive tasks among individual employees was a successful strategy for the production of standardized products, but current differentiated products and services require multitasking and multiskilled employees working in teams that permit them to deal with environments where flexibility and innovation are high (Lanz, Miroudot, & Nordås, 2013). The interest in unit-level justice is also congruent with the shift of scientific knowledge toward a real consideration of the organization from a systems approach, in which research cannot be restricted to the individual level of analysis. Reality emerges at different levels (individual, team, organization as a whole), and examining this multitude of levels and their interrelations indicates maturity of theory and research (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). The development of techniques and methods for both the aggregation of original individual data and cross-level analyses has permitted the flourishing of studies with a multilevel perspective.

The team level changes the way we study organizational justice. However, concerns, topics, and perspectives at the team level are very similar to those investigated at the individual level. Martínez-Tur and Moliner (in press) showed that this parallelism between individual and team levels exists in at least five aspects. First, there are similarities with respect to the dimensionality of justice. Although justice at the team level started with procedural justice (Naumann & Bennet, 2000), research has progressively incorporated the other classical dimensions (distributive and interactional) investigated at the individual level as well as the interest in overall justice (e.g., Priesemuth, Arnaud, & Schminke, 2013). Second, scholars have observed very similar relations with outcomes for both individual and team levels. The meta-analysis by Whitman, Caleo, Carpenter, Horner, and Bernerth (2012) is very illustrative. For one thing, the magnitudes of relations with outcomes are similar for both individual and team levels: “the patterns of the relationships at the unit level appear to be either similar or slightly greater in magnitude than the individual-level relations” (Whitman et al., 2012, p. 784). Third, research on justice at the team level has so far concentrated on one external authority (e.g., the manager) as the predominant source of justice, in harmony with efforts at the individual level. While managers are important, it is also crucial to consider other sources of justice (Li & Cropanzano, 2009). Fourth, leadership, as an antecedent of justice at the individual level, has been transferred to the investigation of justice at the team level (Ehrhart, 2004). Because of their relevance in teams and in creating fair/unfair environments, leaders (and leadership) are critical sources of justice for individuals and teams. Finally, the parallelism is again present in the study of justice and organizational change. At the individual level, procedural justice has played a relevant role in explaining worker reactions to changes (Brockner et al., 1994). A similar research strategy has been considered at the team level (Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2007).

For all of these reasons, research at the individual level has been successful as a model for the investigation of justice at the team level. For example, the concept of “justice climate” – describing shared perceptions among individuals pertaining to how the team as a whole is treated – is now very widely investigated within justice research. However, research is increasingly exploring particularities of teams that cannot exist at the individual level. This research strategy is promising because it can permit us to expand the knowledge beyond the parallelism with the individual level. One illustrative example is the investigation of peer justice climate. Instead of an external authority, research on peer justice focuses the attention on the specific nature of teams and the way team members treat each other (Cropanzano, Li, & Benson, 2001; Molina, Moliner, Martínez-Tur, Cropanzano, & Peiró, 2015). At least two chapters in this book discuss justice at the team level.

The chapter authored by Molina, Jakopec, Cropanzano, and Moliner (“The role of peer justice climate: what do we know and where can we go from here?”) describes the evidence in favor of the uniqueness of peer justice climate and the potential contribution of this construct to our knowledge. After reviewing previous empirical studies, these authors conclude that peer justice climate is able to predict constructs involving behaviors of an interpersonal nature – cooperative teamwork process and relational service quality – even when justice climate with an external authority as source of justice is controlled. Consequently, the peer justice climate construct fits both the relational model of justice, satisfying the need to belong to the team, and the moral virtues model, arguing for ethical norms that can be shared and violated within teams. This chapter concludes with the proposal of two areas for further research on peer justice climate. First, the authors propose the study of the interaction of different sources of justice for a better understanding of employee reactions, including peers and other sources of justice simultaneously. Second, they also propose the investigation of climate uniformity. In addition to the level (average) and strength (agreement), peer justice climate can present uniform and non-uniform climates that enrich our understanding of justice within teams.

The team is also in the core of the chapter by Adamović, Fortin, and Diehl (“Justice and conflict dynamics in teams”). According to these authors, there has been insufficient attention devoted to the integration of organizational justice and conflict. They argue that this is due to the different types of relationships considered by each literature. Traditionally, organizational justice has focused on the vertical relationship between employees and an external authority, while conflict has attended to the horizontal relationships among team members. Fortunately, integrative research has begun because peer justice climate considers teammates as a source of justice. Likewise, research on conflict has begun to consider the supervisor/manager as an additional source of engagement. Therefore, consideration of the inherent particularities of teams, with significant relationships among team members and between these members and their supervisors, is expan...

Table des matières

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of contributors
• 1 Challenges for an organizational justice research agenda
• Section 1 Justice motives
• Section 2 Justice & particularities of teams
• Section 3 Consequences of injustice and implications for practice
• Section 4 New constructs in organizational justice research
• Index