Organizational justiceFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Organizational injustice redirects to here, and is the flip-side, often more easily consideredGreenberg (1987) introduced the concept of organizational justice with regard to how an employee judges the behaviour of the organization and the employee's resulting attitude and behaviour. (e.g., if a firm makes redundant half of the workers, an employee may feel a sense of injustice with a resulting change in attitude and a drop in productivity).Justice or fairness refers to the idea that an action or decision is morally right, which may be defined according to ethics, religion, fairness, equity, or law. People are naturally attentive to the justice of events and situations in their everyday lives, across a variety of contexts (Tabibnia, Satpute, & Lieberman, 2008). Individuals react to actions and decisions made by organizations every day. An individuals perceptions of these decisions as fair or unfair can influence the individuals subsequent attitudes and behaviors. Fairness is often of central interest to organizations because the implications of perceptions of injustice can impact job attitudes and behaviors at work. Justice in organizations can include issues related to perceptions of fair pay, equal opportunities for promotion, and personnel selection procedures.Overview[edit]Organizational justice is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct. The four proposed components are distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Research also suggests the importance of affect and emotion in the appraisal of the fairness of a situation as well as ones behavioral and attitudinal reactions to the situation (e.g., Barsky, Kaplan, & Beal, 2011). A myriad of literature in the industrial/organizational psychology field has examined organizational justice as well as the associated outcomes. Perceptions of justice influence many key organizational outcomes such as motivation (Latham & Pinder, 2005) and job satisfaction (Al-Zubi, 2010).Corporate social responsibility[edit]A concept related to organizational justice is corporate social responsibility (CSR). Organizational justice generally refers to perceptions of fairness in treatment of individuals internal to that organization while corporate social responsibility focuses on the fairness of treatment of entities external to the organization. Corporate social responsibility refers to a mechanism by which businesses monitor and regulate their performance in line with moral and societal standards such that it has positive influences on all of its stakeholders (Carroll, 1999). Thus, CSR involves organizations going above and beyond what is moral or ethical and behaving in ways that benefit members of society in general. It has been proposed that an employees perceptions of their organizations level of corporate social responsibility can impact that individuals own attitudes and perceptions of justice even if they are not the victim of unfair acts (Rupp et al., 2006).Roots in equity theory[edit]The idea of organizational justice stems from equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965), which posits that judgments of equity and inequity are derived from comparisons between ones self and others based on inputs and outcomes. Inputs refer to what a person perceives to contribute (e.g., knowledge and effort) while outcomes are what an individual perceives to get out of an exchange relationship (e.g., pay and recognition). Comparison points against which these inputs and outcomes are judged may be internal (ones self at an earlier time) or external (other individuals).Types [edit]Three main proposed components of organizational justice are distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (which includes informational and interpersonal justice).Distributive[edit]Distributive justice is conceptualized as the fairness associated with decision outcomes and distribution of resources. The outcomes or resources distributed may be tangible (e.g., pay) or intangible (e.g., praise). Perceptions of distributive justice can be fostered when outcomes are perceived to be equally applied (Adams, 1965).Procedural[edit]Procedural justice is defined as the fairness of the processes that lead to outcomes. When individuals feel that they have a voice in the process or that the process involves characteristics such as consistency, accuracy, ethicality, and lack of bias then procedural justice is enhanced (Leventhal, 1980).Interactional[edit]Interactional justice refers to the treatment that an individual receives as decisions are made and can be promoted by providing explanations for decisions and delivering the news with sensitivity and respect (Bies & Moag, 1986). A construct validation study by Colquitt (2001) suggests that interactional justice should be broken into two components: interpersonal and informational justice. Interpersonal justice refers to perceptions of respect and propriety in ones treatment while informational justice relates to the adequacy of the explanations given in terms of their timeliness, specificity, and truthfulness.Interpersonal justice reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities and third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomesInformational justice focuses on explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashionProposed models[edit]Three different models have been proposed to explain the structure of organizational justice perceptions including a two factor model, a three factor model, and a four factor model. Many researchers have studied organizational justice in terms of the three factor model (e.g., DeConinck, 2010; Liljegren & Ekberg, 2010) while others have used a two factor model in which interpersonal justice is subsumed under procedural justice while yet some other studies suggest a four factor model best fits the data (Colquitt, 2001). Greenberg (1990) proposed a two-factor model and Sweeney and McFarlin (1993) found support for a two-factor model composed of distributive and procedural justice. Through the use of structural equation modeling, Sweeney and McFarlin found that distributive justice was related to outcomes that are person-level (e.g., pay satisfaction) while procedural justice was related to organization-level outcomes (e.g., organizational commitment).The accuracy of the two-factor model was challenged by studies that suggested a third factor (interactional justice) may be involved. Bies and Moag (1986) argue that interactional justice is distinct from procedural justice because it represents the social exchange component of the interaction and the quality of treatment whereas procedural justice represents the processes that were used to arrive at the decision outcomes. Generally researchers are in agreement regarding the distinction between procedural and distributive justice but there is more controversy over the distinction between interactional and procedural justice (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Colquitt (2001) demonstrated that a four-factor model (including procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice) fit the data significantly better than a two or three factor model. Colquitts construct validation study also showed that each of the four components have predictive validity for different key organizational outcomes (e.g., commitment and rule compliance).Another model of organizational justice proposed by Byrne (1999) and colleagues (Byrne & Cropanzano, 2000) suggested that organizational justice is a multi-foci construct, one where employees see justice as coming from a source - either the organization or their supervisor. Thus, rather than focus on justice as the three or four factor component model, Byrne suggested that employees personify the organization and they distinguish between whether they feel the organization or supervisor have treated them fairly (interactional), use fair procedures (procedural), or allocate rewards or assignments fairly (distributive justice). A number of researchers used this model exploring the possibility that justice is more than just 3 or 4 factors (e.g., Karriker & Williams, 2009).The role of affect in organizational justice perceptions[edit]One of the key constructs that has been shown to play a role in the formation of organizational justice perceptions is affect. The precise role of affect HH in organizational justice perceptions depends on the form of affectivity being examined (emotions, mood, disposition) as well as the context and type of justice being measured. Affect may serve as an antecedent, outcome, or even a mediator of organizational justice perceptions.A recent article (Barksy, Kaplan, & Beal, 2011) provides a model that explains the role of affect and emotions at various stages of the appraisal and reaction stages of justice perception formation and illustrates that injustice is generally an affect laden and subjective experience. Affect and emotions can be part of the reactions to perceived injustice, as studies have shown that the more injustice that is perceived, the higher degrees of negative emotions are experienced. In addition, affect can act as a mediator between justice perceptions and actions taken to redress the perceived injustice. Affect plays this role in equity theory such that negative affective reactions act as a mediator between perceptions and actions, as emotional reactions to justice motivate individuals to take action to restore equity.A recent meta-analysis by Barsky and Kaplan (2007) condenses many studies on this topic and explains that state and trait level affect can influence ones perceptions of justice. The findings of Barsky and Kaplan show that both state and trait level negative affect can act as antecedents to justice perceptions. State and trait level negative affect are negatively associated with interactional, procedural, and distributive justice perceptions. Conversely, positive state and trait affectivity was linked to higher ratings of interactional, procedural and distributive justice.Based on the research regarding the central role of affect in justice perceptions, Lang, Bliese, Lang, and Adler (2011) extended this research and studied the idea that sustained clinical levels of negative affect (depression) could be a precursor to perceptions of injustice in organizations. Lang et al. (2011) tested longitudinal cross-lagged effects between organizational justice perceptions and employee depressive symptoms and found that depressive symptoms do lead to subsequent organizational justice perceptions. Thus, affect can serve as an antecedent to justice perceptions in this instance.Antecedents of organizational justice perceptions[edit]Employee participation[edit]One antecedent to perceptions of organizational justice is the extent to which employees feel that they are involved in decision-making or other organizational procedures. Higher levels of justice are perceived when employees feel that they have input in processes than when employees do not perceive that they have the opportunity to participate (Greenberg & Folger, 1983; Bies & Shapiro, 1988). The opportunity or ability to participate in decision making improves an individuals perceptions of procedural justice, even when the decision is unfavorable to the individual (Bies & Shapiro, 1988). In addition, other studies have shown that employee input is related to both procedural and interpersonal justice perceptions (Kernan & Hanges, 2002).Communication[edit]A second antecedent to organizational justice perceptions is organizational communication with employees. Communication has been shown to be related to interpersonal and informational justice perceptions (Kernan & Hanges, 2002). The quality of communication by an organization or manager can improve justice perceptions by improving employee perceptions of manager trustworthiness and also by reducing feelings of uncertainty (Kernan & Hanges, 2002). It is important that the information provided be accurate, timely, and helpful in order for the impact on justice perceptions to be positive (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991).Justice climate[edit]Perceptions of organizational justice can be influenced by others, such as co-workers and team members. Recent research suggests that team level perceptions of justice form what is called a justice climate which can impact individuals own views of justice (Li & Cropanzano, 2009). Employees working within a team may share their perceptions with one another which can lead to a shared interpretation of the fairness of events (Roberson & Colquitt, 2005). Research findings show that individuals can learn justice evaluations from team members and these can lead to homogeneity of justice perceptions within teams, creating a strong justice climate (Roberson & Colquitt, 2005). Thus, group-level perceptions of justice can be conceptualized as an antecedent to individuals justice perceptions.Outcomes of organizational justice perceptions[edit]Employees perceptions of injustice within the organization can result in a myriad of outcomes both positive and negative. Outcomes are affected by perceptions of organizational justice as a whole or by different factors of organizational justice. Commonly cited outcomes affected by organizational justice include trust, performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), absenteeism, turnover, and emotional exhaustion.Trust[edit]Main article: Trust (social sciences)The relationship between trust and organizational justice perceptions is based on reciprocity. Trust in the organization is built from the employees belief that since current organizational decisions are fair, future organizational decisions will be fair. The continuance of employee trust in the organization and the organization continuing to meet the employees expectations of fairness creates the reciprocal relationship between trust and organizational justice (DeConick, 2010). Research has found that procedural justice is the strongest predictor of organizational trust (Hubbell & Chory-Assad, 2005; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). A positive relationship between an employee and supervisor can lead to trust in the organization (Karriker & Williams, 2009).Performance[edit]Main article: Job performanceThe impact of organizational justice perceptions on performance is believed to stem from equity theory. This would suggest that when people perceive injustice they seek to restore justice. One way that employees restore justice is by altering their level of job performance. Procedural justice affects performance as a result of its impact on employee attitudes. Distributive justice affects performance when efficiency and productivity are involved (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Improving justice perceptions improves productivity and performance (Karriker & Williams, 2009).Job satisfaction and organizational commitment[edit]Main articles: Job satisfaction and Organizational commitmentJob satisfaction was found to be positively associated with overall perceptions of organizational justice such that greater perceived injustice results in lower levels of job satisfaction and greater perceptions of justice result in higher levels of job satisfaction (Al-Zubi, 2010). Additionally, organizational commitment is related to perceptions of procedural justice such that greater perceived injustice results in diminished commitment while greater perceived justice results in increases commitment to the organization (DeConick, 2010; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).Organizational citizenship behavior[edit]Main article: Organizational citizenship behaviorOrganizational citizenship behaviors are actions that employees take to support the organization that go above and beyond the scope of their job description. OCBs are related to both procedural justice (DeConick, 2010; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Karriker & Williams, 2009) and distributive justice perceptions (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Karriker & Williams, 2009). As organizational actions and decisions are perceived as more just, employees are more likely to engage in OCBs. Karriker and Williams (2009) established that OCBs are directed toward either the supervisor or the organization depending on whether the perception of just stems from the supervisor or the organization. Additionally, a relationship was found between interpersonal justice and OCBs; however, this relationship was not mediated by the source of justice perceptions (Karriker & Williams, 2009).Counterproductive work behaviors[edit]Main article: Counterproductive work behaviorCounterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) are intentional behaviors on the part of an organizational member viewed by the organization as contrary to their legitimate interests (Gruys and Sackett, 2003, p.30). There are many reasons that explain why organizational justice can affect CWBs. Increased judgments of procedural injustice, for instance, can lead to employee unwillingness to comply with an organizations rules (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001) because the relationship between perceived procedural injustice and CWBs could be mediated by perceived normative conflict, i.e., the extent to which employees perceive conflict between the norms of their workgroup and the rules of the organization (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara & Verano-Tacoronte, 2007). Thus, the more perceptions of procedural injustice lead employees to perceived normative conflict, the more it is likely that CWBs occur.Absenteeism and withdrawal[edit]Main article: AbsenteeismAbsenteeism, or non-attendance, is another outcome of perceived injustice related to equity theory (Johns, 2001). Failure to receive a promotion is an example of a situation in which feelings of injustice may result in an employee being absent from work without reason. Johns (2001) found that when people saw both their commitment to the organization and the organizations commitment to them as high, absenteeism is diminished. Additionally, withdrawal, or leaving the organization, is a more extreme outcome stemming from the same equity theory principles. Distributive justice perceptions are most strongly related to withdrawal (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).Emotional exhaustion[edit]Main article: Emotional exhaustionEmotional exhaustion, which related to employee health and burnout, is related to overall organizational justice perceptions. As perceptions of justice increase employee health increases and burnout decreases (Liljegren & Ekberg, 2009). Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice perceptions are able to capture state specific levels of emotional exhaustion which fade over time; however, overall organizational justice perceptions give the most stable picture of the relationship between justice perceptions and emotional exhaustion over time (Liljegren & Ekberg, 2009).Distributive justiceFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Bold textThis article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2014)

Distributive justice concerns the nature of a socially just allocation of goods in a society. A society in which incidental inequalities in outcome do not arise would be considered a society guided by the principles of distributive justice. The concept includes the available quantities of goods, the process by which goods are to be distributed, and the resulting allocation of the goods to the members of the society.Often contrasted with just process, which is concerned with the administration of law, distributive justice concentrates on outcomes. This subject has been given considerable attention in philosophy and the social sciences.In social psychology, distributive justice is defined as perceived fairness of how rewards and costs are shared by (distributed across) group members.[1] For example, when workers of the same job are paid different salaries, group members may feel that distributive justice has not occurred.To determine whether distributive justice has taken place, individuals often turn to the distributive norms of their group.[1] A norm is the standard of behaviour that is required, desired, or designated as normal within a particular group.[2] If rewards and costs are allocated according to the designated distributive norms of the group, Types of distributive norms[edit]Five types of distributive norm are defined by Forsyth:[who?][1]1. Equity: Members outcomes should be based upon their inputs. Therefore, an individual who has invested a large amount of input (e.g. time, money, energy) should receive more from the group than someone who has contributed very little. Members of large groups prefer to base allocations of rewards and costs on equity.2. Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an equal share of the rewards/costs. Equality supports that someone who contributes 20% of the groups resources should receive as much as someone who contributes 60%.3. Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over the group should receive more than those in lower level positions.4. Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to meet those needs. These individuals should be given more resources than those who already possess them, regardless of their input.5. Responsibility: Group members who have the most should share their resources with those who have less.In organizations[edit]This section has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. (August 2014)

In the context of organizational justice, distributive justice is conceptualized as fairness associated with outcomes decisions and distribution of resources. The outcomes or resources distributed may be tangible (e.g., pay) as well as intangible (e.g., praise). Perceptions of distributive justice can be fostered when outcomes are perceived to be equally applied (Adams, 1965).Outcomes[edit]Distributive justice affects performance when efficiency and productivity are involved (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Improving perceptions of justice increases performance (Karriker & Williams, 2009). Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are employee actions in support of the organization that are outside the scope of their job description. Such behaviors depend on the degree to which an organization is perceived to be distributively just (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Karriker & Williams, 2009). As organizational actions and decisions are perceived as more just, employees are more likely to engage in OCBs. Perceptions of distributive justice are also strongly related also to the withdrawal of employees from the organization (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).Distributive justice and wealth[edit]See also: Redistribution (economics)Distributive justice considers whether the distribution of goods among the members of society at a given time is subjectively acceptable.Not all advocates of consequentialist theories are concerned with an equitable society. What unites them is the mutual interest in achieving the best possible results or, in terms of the example above, the best possible distribution of wealth.In policy positions[edit]Distributive justice theory argues that societies have a duty to individuals in need and that all individuals have a duty to help others in need. Proponents of distributive justice link it to human rights.Many governments are known for dealing with issues of distributive justice, especially countries with ethnic tensions and geographically distinctive minorities. Post-apartheid South Africa is an example of a country that deals with issues of re-allocating resources with respect to the distributive justice framework.Interactional justiceFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Interactional justice is defined by sociologist John R. Schermerhorn as the "...degree to which the people affected by decision are treated by dignity and respect. ( John R. Schermerhorn, Organizational behavior) The theory focuses on the interpersonal treatment people receive when procedures are implemented.Interactional justice, a subcomponent of organizational justice, has come to be seen as consisting of two specific types of interpersonal treatment (e.g. Greenberg, 1990a, 1993b). The first labeled interpersonal justice, reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities or third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes. The second, labeled informational justice, focuses on the explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion. Where more adequacy of explanation is prevalent, the perceived level of informational justice is higher. (Sam Fricchione 2006).Within an organization[edit]It is important that a high degree of interactional justice exists in a subordinate/supervisor relationship in order to reduce the likelihood of counterproductive work behavior. If a subordinate perceives that interactional injustice exists, then the subordinate will hold feelings of resentment toward either the supervisor or institution and will therefore seek to even the score.[1] A victim of interaction injustice will have increased expressions of hostility toward the offender which can manifest in actions of counterproductive work behavior and reduce the effectiveness of organizational communication.[2]Abuse directed toward a subordinate from a supervisor often stems from displaced aggression. In this case, the individual (supervisor) is unwilling to retaliate against the direct source of mistreatment and will therefore abuse a less threatening target such as a subordinate since the subordinate is incapable of retaliation.[3] Thus, interactional injustice can essentially trickle-down from the top of an organization to the bottom due to displaced aggression that exists in the top ranks of the hierarchy.Procedural justiceFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Procedural justice is the idea of fairness in the processes that resolve disputes and allocate resources. One aspect of procedural justice is related to discussions of the administration of justice and legal proceedings. This sense of procedural justice is connected to due process (U.S.), fundamental justice (Canada), procedural fairness (Australia), and natural justice (other Common law jurisdictions), but the idea of procedural justice can also be applied to nonlegal contexts in which some process is employed to resolve conflict or divide benefits or burdens. Other aspects of procedural justice can also be found in social psychology and sociology issues and organizational psychology.Procedural justice concerns the fairness and the transparency of the processes by which decisions are made, and may be contrasted with distributive justice (fairness in the distribution of rights or resources), and retributive justice (fairness in the punishment of wrongs). Hearing all parties before a decision is made is one step which would be considered appropriate to be taken in order that a process may then be characterised as procedurally fair. Some theories of procedural justice hold that fair procedure leads to equitable outcomes, even if the requirements of distributive or restorative justice are not met.[1] It has been suggested that this is the outcome of the higher quality interpersonal interactions often found in the procedural justice process, which has shown to be stronger in affecting the perception of fairness during conflict resolution.In relation to communication[edit]In relation to communication, procedural justice deals with the perceptions of fairness regarding outcomes. It reflects the extent in which an individual perceives that outcome allocation decisions have been fairly made. The use of fair procedures helps communicate that employees are valued members of the group. Procedural Justice can be examined by focusing on the formal procedures used to make decisions. Procedural justice, a subcomponent of organizational justice, is important in communication and in the workplace because it involves fair procedures, it allows the employees to have a say in the decision process, it gives employees fair treatment, and allows them to have more input in the appraisal process. Additionally, research by Tom R. Tyler and colleagues found that giving disgruntled group members a voice regardless of whether it is instrumental (i.e. a voice that affects the decision-making process) or non-instrumental (i.e. a voice that will not have any weighting on the decision-making process) is sometimes enough for a process to be viewed as fair.[2] [3] The ability and right to a voice is linked with feelings of respect and value, which emphasizes the importance of the interpersonal factors of procedural justice.[4] This is important in the workplace because employees will feel more satisfied and respected, which can help to increase job task and contextual performance. There is an emphasis on the interpersonal and social aspects of the procedure, which result in employees feeling more satisfied when their voices are able to be heard. This was argued by Greenberg and Folger. Procedural justice also is a major factor that contributes to the expression of employee dissent. It correlates positively with managers' upward dissent. With procedural justice there is a greater deal of fairness in the workplace. There are six rules that apply to procedural justice, "Leventhal's rules", are consistence, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicality. With procedural justice in the workplace and in communication, things need to be fair to everyone, when something is applied it has to be applied to everyone and procedures need to be consistent with the moral and ethical values.Perfect, imperfect and pure[edit]In A Theory of Justice, the philosopher John Rawls distinguished three ideas of procedural justice:[5]1. Perfect procedural justice has two characteristics: (1) an independent criterion for what constitutes a fair or just outcome of the procedure, and (2) a procedure that guarantees that the fair outcome will be achieved.2. Imperfect procedural justice shares the first characteristic of perfect procedural justice--there is an independent criterion for a fair outcome--but no method that guarantees that the fair outcome will be achieved.3. Pure procedural justice describes situations in which there is no criterion for what constitutes a just outcome other than the procedure itself.Models of procedural fairness[edit]The theory of procedural justice is controversial, with a variety of views about what makes a procedure fair. Traditionally these views tend to fall into three main families, which can be called the outcomes model, the balancing model, and the participation model.The outcomes model[edit]The idea of the outcomes model of procedural justice is that the fairness of process depends on the procedure producing correct outcomes. For example, if the procedure is a criminal trial, then the correct outcome would be conviction of the guilty and exonerating the innocent. If the procedure were a legislative process, then the procedure would be fair to the extent that it produced good legislation and unfair to the extent that it produced bad legislation.This has many limitations. Principally, if two procedures produced equivalent outcomes, then they are equally just according to this model. However, as the next two sections explain, there are other features about a procedure that make it just or unjust. For example, many would argue that a benevolent dictatorship is not (as) just as a democratic state (even if they have similar outcomes).The balancing model[edit]Some procedures are costly. The idea of the balancing model is that a fair procedure is one which reflects a fair balance between the costs of the procedure and the benefits that it produces. Thus, the balancing approach to procedural fairness might in some circumstances be prepared to tolerate or accept false positive verdicts in order to avoid unwanted costs (political) associated with the administration of criminal process.The participation model[edit]The idea of the participation model is that a fair procedure is one that affords those who are affected by an opportunity to participate in the making of the decision. In the context of a trial, for example, the participation model would require that the defendant be afforded an opportunity to be present at the trial, to put on evidence, cross examination witnesses, and so forth.The group engagement model[edit]Models have also been proposed to understand the psychological basis of justice. One of the more recent of these models is the group engagement model.[6]The group engagement model (GEM), devised by Tom R. Tyler and Steven L. Blader, incorporates past psychological theories to explain the underlying psychological processes of procedural justice. Based on social identity theory and relational models of procedural justice, this model suggests that a group's procedural justice process influences members' identification with the group, which in turn influences their type of engagement within the group.According to the model, group engagement is seen as either mandatory or discretionary behavior. Mandatory behavior is defined by Tyler and Blader as behavior that is required by the group and thus is motivated by incentives and sanctions. Conversely, discretionary behavior is motivated by internal values and is seen as more cooperative and therefore ideal within a group.Depending on the procedural justice processes of the group, the social identity of the members will be influenced accordingly and different values will be emphasised. The more a member agrees with the type of procedural justice employed, the more they will identify with their group. This increased identification results in the internalization of the group's values and attitudes for the group member. This creates a circular relationship as the group's procedural justice processes will affect group members' levels of identification and, as a consequence, this level and type of identification will affect their own values of what is fair and unfair. This, in turn, will then affect how the individuals will engage with their group, with higher identification leading to discretionary and more desirable behavior.Due process and natural justice[edit]Main articles: Due process and Natural justiceThe idea of procedural justice is especially influential in the law. In the United States, for example, a concern for procedural justice is reflected in the Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution. In other common law countries, this same idea is sometimes called natural justice.Natural justice generally binds both public and private entities, while the U.S. concept of due process has a "state action" requirement which means it applies only to state actors. But in the U.S., there are analogous concepts like fair procedure which can bind private parties in their relations with others.Equity theoryFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (October 2011)

Equity theory is a theory that attempts to explain relational satisfaction in terms of perceptions of fair/unfair distributions of resources within interpersonal relationships. Considered one of the justice theories, equity theory was first developed in 1963 by John Stacey Adams, a workplace and behavioral psychologist, who asserted that employees seek to maintain equity between the inputs that they bring to a job and the outcomes that they receive from it against the perceived inputs and outcomes of others (Adams, 1965). The belief is that people value fair treatment which causes them to be motivated to keep the fairness maintained within the relationships of their co-workers and the organization. The structure of equity in the workplace is based on the ratio of inputs to outcomes. Inputs are the contributions made by the employee for the organization.Background[edit]Equity theory proposes that individuals who perceive themselves as either under-rewarded or over-rewarded will experience distress, and that this distress leads to efforts to restore equity within the relationship. It focuses on determining whether the distribution of resources is fair to both relational partners. Equity is measured by comparing the ratios of contributions and benefits of each person within the relationship. Partners do not have to receive equal benefits (such as receiving the same amount of love, care, and financial security) or make equal contributions (such as investing the same amount of effort, time, and financial resources), as long as the ratio between these benefits and contributions is similar. Much like other prevalent theories of motivation, such as Maslows hierarchy of needs, equity theory acknowledges that subtle and variable individual factors affect each persons assessment and perception of their relationship with their relational partners (Guerrero et al., 2007). According to Adams (1965), anger is induced by underpayment inequity and guilt is induced with overpayment equity (Spector 2008). Payment whether hourly wage or salary, is the main concern and therefore the cause of equity or inequity in most cases.In any position, an employee wants to feel that their contributions and work performance are being rewarded with their pay. If an employee feels underpaid then it will result in the employee feeling hostile towards the organization and perhaps their co-workers, which may result in the employee not performing well at work anymore. It is the subtle variables that also play an important role in the feeling of equity. Just the idea of recognition for the job performance and the mere act of thanking the employee will cause a feeling of satisfaction and therefore help the employee feel worthwhile and have better outcomes.Definition of equity[edit]An individual will consider that he is treated fairly if he perceives the ratio of his inputs to his outcomes to be equivalent to those around him. Thus, all else being equal, it would be acceptable for a more senior colleague to receive higher compensation, since the value of his experience (and input) is higher. The way people base their experience with satisfaction for their job is to make comparisons with themselves to people they work with. If an employee notices that another person is getting more recognition and rewards for their contributions, even when both have done the same amount and quality of work, it would persuade the employee to be dissatisfied. This dissatisfaction would result in the employee feeling underappreciated and perhaps worthless. This is in direct contrast with the idea of equity theory, the idea is to have the rewards (outcomes) be directly related with the quality and quantity of the employees contributions (inputs). If both employees were perhaps rewarded the same, it would help the workforce realize that the organization is fair, observant, and appreciative.This can be illustrated by the following equation:

Inputs and outcomes[edit]Inputs[edit]Inputs are defined as each participants contributions to the relational exchange and are viewed as entitling him/her to rewards or costs. The inputs that a participant contributes to a relationship can be either assets entitling him/her to rewards or liabilities - entitling him/her to costs. The entitlement to rewards or costs ascribed to each input vary depending on the relational setting. In industrial settings, assets such as capital and manual labor are seen as "relevant inputs" inputs that legitimately entitle the contributor to rewards. In social settings, assets such as physical beauty and kindness are generally seen as assets entitling the possessor to social rewards. Individual traits such as boorishness and cruelty are seen as liabilities entitling the possessor to costs (Walster, Traupmann & Walster, 1978). Inputs typically include any of the following: Time Effort Loyalty Hard Work Commitment Ability Adaptability Flexibility Tolerance Determination Enthusiasm Personal sacrifice Trust in superiors Support from co-workers and colleagues SkillOutcomes[edit]Outcomes are defined as the positive and negative consequences that an individual perceives a participant has incurred as a consequence of his/her relationship with another. When the ratio of inputs to outcomes is close, than the employee should have much satisfaction with their job. Outputs can be both tangible and intangible.[1] Typical outcomes include any of the following: Job security Salary Employee benefit Expenses Recognition Reputation Responsibility Sense of achievement Praise Thanks StimuliPropositions[edit]Equity theory consists of four propositions:1. Individuals seek to maximize their outcomes (where outcomes are defined as rewards minus costs).[2]2. Groups can maximize collective rewards by developing accepted systems for equitably apportioning rewards and costs among members. Systems of equity will evolve within groups, and members will attempt to induce other members to accept and adhere to these systems. The only way groups can induce members to equitably behave is by making it more profitable to behave equitably than inequitably. Thus, groups will generally reward members who treat others equitably and generally punish (increase the cost for) members who treat others inequitably.3. When individuals find themselves participating in inequitable relationships, they become distressed. The more inequitable the relationship, the more distress individuals feel. According to equity theory, both the person who gets too much and the person who gets too little feel distressed. The person who gets too much may feel guilt or shame. The person who gets too little may feel angry or humiliated.4. Individuals who perceive that they are in an inequitable relationship attempt to eliminate their distress by restoring equity. The greater the inequity, the more distress people feel and the more they try to restore equity. (Walster, Traupmann and Walster, 1978)Equity theory in business[edit]Equity theory has been widely applied to business settings by industrial psychologists to describe the relationship between an employee's motivation and his or her perception of equitable or inequitable treatment. In a business setting, the relevant dyadic relationship is that between employee and employer. As in marriage and other contractual dyadic relationships, equity theory assumes that employees seek to maintain an equitable ratio between the inputs they bring to the relationship and the outcomes they receive from it (Adams, 1965). Equity theory in business, however, introduces the concept of social comparison, whereby employees evaluate their own input/output ratios based on their comparison with the input/outcome ratios of other employees (Carrell and Dittrich, 1978). Inputs in this context include the employees time, expertise, qualifications, experience, intangible personal qualities such as drive and ambition, and interpersonal skills. Outcomes include monetary compensation, perquisites (perks), benefits, and flexible work arrangements. Employees who perceive inequity will seek to reduce it, either by distorting inputs and/or outcomes in their own minds ("cognitive distortion"), directly altering inputs and/or outcomes, or leaving the organization (Carrell and Dittrich, 1978). These perceptions of inequity are perceptions of organizational justice, or more specifically, injustice. Subsequently, the theory has wide-reaching implications for employee morale, efficiency, productivity, and turnover.Assumptions of equity theory applied to business[edit]The three primary assumptions applied to most business applications of equity theory can be summarized as follows:1. Employees expect a fair return for what they contribute to their jobs, a concept referred to as the equity norm.2. Employees determine what their equitable return should be after comparing their inputs and outcomes with those of their coworkers. This concept is referred to as social comparison.3. Employees who perceive themselves as being in an inequitable situation will seek to reduce the inequity either by distorting inputs and/or outcomes in their own minds (cognitive distortion), by directly altering inputs and/or outputs, or by leaving the organization. (Carrell and Dittrich, 1978)Implications for managers[edit]Equity theory has several implications for business managers: People measure the totals of their inputs and outcomes. This means a working mother may accept lower monetary compensation in return for more flexible working hours. Different employees ascribe personal values to inputs and outcomes. Thus, two employees of equal experience and qualification performing the same work for the same pay may have quite different perceptions of the fairness of the deal. Employees are able to adjust for purchasing power and local market conditions. Thus a teacher from Alberta may accept lower compensation than his colleague in Toronto if his cost of living is different, while a teacher in a remote African village may accept a totally different pay structure. Although it may be acceptable for more senior staff to receive higher compensation, there are limits to the balance of the scales of equity and employees can find excessive executive pay demotivating. Staff perceptions of inputs and outcomes of themselves and others may be incorrect, and perceptions need to be managed effectively. An employee who believes he is overcompensated may increase his effort. However he may also adjust the values that he ascribes to his own personal inputs. It may be that he or she internalizes a sense of superiority and actually decrease his efforts.Criticisms and related theories[edit]Criticism has been directed toward both the assumptions and practical application of equity theory. Scholars have questioned the simplicity of the model, arguing that a number of demographic and psychological variables affect people's perceptions of fairness and interactions with others. Furthermore, much of the research supporting the basic propositions of equity theory has been conducted in laboratory settings, and thus has questionable applicability to real-world situations (Huseman, Hatfield & Miles, 1987). Critics have also argued that people might perceive equity/inequity not only in terms of the specific inputs and outcomes of a relationship, but also in terms of the overarching system that determines those inputs and outputs. Thus, in a business setting, one might feel that his or her compensation is equitable to other employees', but one might view the entire compensation system as unfair (Carrell and Dittrich, 1978).Researchers have offered numerous magnifying and competing perspectives:Equity sensitivity construct[edit]The Equity Sensitivity Construct proposes that individuals have different preferences for equity and thus react in different ways to perceived equity and inequity. Preferences can be expressed on a continuum from preferences for extreme under-benefit to preferences for extreme over-benefit. Three archetypal classes are as follows: Benevolents, those who prefer their own input/outcome ratios to be less than those of their relational partner. In other words, the benevolent prefers to be under-benefitted. Equity Sensitives, those who prefer their own input/outcome ratios to be equal to those of their relational partner. Entitleds, those who prefer their own input/outcome ratios to exceed those of their relational partner. In other words, the entitled prefers to be over-benefitted. (Huseman, Hatfield & Miles, 1987)Fairness model[edit]The Fairness Model proposes an alternative measure of equity/inequity to the relational partner or "comparison person" of standard equity theory. According to the Fairness Model, an individual judges the overall "fairness" of a relationship by comparing their inputs and outcomes with an internally derived standard. The Fairness Model thus allows for the perceived equity/inequity of the overarching system to be incorporated into individuals' evaluations of their relationships (Carrell and Dittrich, 1978).Equity theory and game theory[edit]Behavioral economics has recently started to apply game theory to the study equity theory. For instance, Gill and Stone (2010) analyze how considerations of equity influence behavior in strategic settings in which people compete and develop the implications for optimal labor contracts.The organization justice1. IntroductionQuestions regarding the organization justice and OCBs have received considerable attention by the researchers in the areas of industrial psychology, human resource management and organizational behavior during last few decades. Much more studies have been conducted to investigate the effects of organizational justice on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Researchers have been emphasizing the relationship of organization justice with OCBs across the world through different moderating variables. The article which I have chosen for review is "The Effects of Leader-Member Exchange on Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Empirical Study" written by Noormala Amir Ishak and Syed Shah Alam and published in European Journal of Social Sciences in 2009. As it is reflected in the topic, the author in this article analyzed the impact of three types of organizational justice on five dimensions of OCBs. The author also assesses the mediating role of Leader-Member Exchange in the relationship of organizational justice and OCBs.In the first part, the paper under discussion will to be summarized and in the second part, the relevance of the article to the Management will be discussed. In last part of critical review, first the article has been summarized and the critical remarks have been pen down.2. Relevance to the ManagementOrganizational JusticeThe issue of organizational justice and OCBs has attained ample attention of research community under the umbrella of organizational behaviors from last 4 decades. The work of Folger and Greenberg's (1985) is considered to be pioneering in this area of research, which received considerable attention in academic circles. It was followed by the study of Cropanzano, et al. (2001), whose primary focus was to explore the perception of justice and fair dealings among workers on work places. Later studies found organization justice to have a strong link with HR factors such as perceived organizational support, leadership behaviors and leaders-member exchange, empowerment, communication and socialization (H. Zhang, 2006; Jahangir, et. al, 2004) and employees' attitudes such as job satisfaction, job commitment, turnover intentions, employee deviance, job stress (Zhang, 2006; Karriker and Williams, 2009; Aquino, et al., 1999). Researchers in the area of organizational justice classified these factors into three dimensions: Distributive, Procedural and Interactional (Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1993). These dimensions of justice have been reviewed in following sections.i) Distributive Justice:Distributive justice refers to the extent to which employees perceive the fairness of their work outcomes (Adam, 1965; Homans, 1968). Distributive justice is derived from equity theory provided by Adam (1963, 1965). The theory argues that people compare the ratios of their perceived input (e.g. contribution) and output (e.g. financial and non-financial rewards) with those of others at the workplace. If there is imbalance, the individuals whose ratio is greater than the other is perceived as underpaid whereas the individuals whose ratio is lesser is perceived as overpaid. Equal ratios are strongly associated with positive employees' behaviors towards their jobs and organizations (Greenberg, 1990). Individuals who perceive themselves as comparatively low paid, attempt to reduce their distress by attempting to transform the inequitable situation to comfortable equitable position. These attempts may either be behavioral (e.g. altering job input and/or output) or psychological (e.g. altering perception of work input/or ouput) (Walster, et al. 1978). Keeping in view the equity theory, later studies found that underpaid individuals decrease their contribution and individuals overpaid increase their contribution to achieve the organizational goals (Greenberg, 1982).

Get help with your essayRead more about ourEssay Writing Service >

Looking for examples of OUR work?Click here to see ourEssay Writing Examples >

Want to know more about our services?Take a look at ourWriting & Marking Service Index >ii) Procedural Justice:Thibaut and Walker conducted a series of study in early 1970s on the reaction to dispute-resolution process which further lead them to the development of procedural justice theory (Thibaut and Walkder, 1975). Procedural justice was conceived as "extent to which individuals recognize the fairness of procedures and systems that govern the allocation of rewards" (Leventhal, 1980; Lind and Tyler, 1988). Leventhal (1980) provided a variety of rules which allocation procedure must satisfy in order to be perceived as fair. These rules are consistency, bias-suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness and ethicality. Leventhal concluded that perception of procedural justice will be positive if these rules are sufficiently satisfied by the reward allocation procedure. Greenberg (1986) commented that individuals believe that reward resulting from unfair processes are themselves unfair but only when such outcomes are little beneficial. On the other hand, outcomes that provide more benefits are perceived as fair irrespective of the fairness of outcome allocation procedure. When procedures are transparent and people are being informed about them, they recognize that they are being treated fairly (Beugre, 1998).iii) Interactional (Interpersonal and Informational) JusticeExtending the previous theories of procedural justice, Bies and Moag (1986) differentiated between formal procedures (e.g. consistency, bias-suppression, accuracy) and the social aspects of fairness (e.g. treatment with courtesy) and introduced third dimension of organizational justice termed as interactional justice. According to the Bies and Moag (1986), interactional justice refers to the extent to which employees are treated with dignity and respect. Interpersonal treatment is found to have a significant impact on the employees' perception of organizational justice as well. Employees' perception is promoted when the justifications regarding the situation are clearly, truthfully and adequately explained and when employees are treated with courtesy, dignity and respect (Bies, Shapiro, & Cumming, 1988).Organizational Citizenship BehaviorsEmployees' Readiness to exert extra efforts beyond their formal job duties has long been identified as an essential predictor of organizational performance. It is noted in the work environment that the readiness of employees to exert cooperative efforts ultimately leads to the effective achievements of organizational goals. Exploring further this area, Katz and Kahn (1978) revealed that the rewards that motivate such unprompted, informal input are different from those that encourage task proficiency. Such theories provided an arena to the follower researchers; among them, Organ (1988) first introduced the concept of OCBs. Citizenship is a behavioral component that is believed to have a promise to improve organizational productivity by improving the attitudes of employees, creating harmony, cooperation and coordination among employees and minimizing disagreements (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Smith et al, 1983). OCB is defined as an optional and extra role, beyond the formal job, without expecting any reward that improves organizational functioning (Organ, 1988). Behavior such as helping an absent co-worker, willing to perform extra duties whenever required, playing vital role in the organization functions even without assigning the duty and resolving unconstructive interpersonal conflict (Organ, 1990).Organ (1988) introduced five dimensions OCBs i.e. Altruism (helping the specific others on the organizational tasks), Conscientiousness (efficient use of time, extra role with respect to the attendance, abiding by organizational rules, break time etc), Courtesy (get the update information and providing it to others to avoid work related problems), Sportsmanship (avoids complaining, Maximum use of time for organizational profitability), Civic Virtue (participating in committees and volunteer work for organizational functions). Followed study by Farh et. al., (1997) investigated two types of organizational behaviors i.e. positive contribution and preventing to engage in activities that are harmful to others.

Get help with your essayRead more about ourEssay Writing Service >

Looking for examples of OUR work?Click here to see ourEssay Writing Examples >

Want to know more about our services?Take a look at ourWriting & Marking Service Index >Leader-Member ExchangeLeader-member exchange (LMX) theory suggests that quality of the exchange relationships that have been between employees and their leaders promise the highly productive attitudes of employees (Gerstner and Day, 1997; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). LMX theory is unique among leadership theories in its focus on the dyadic exchange relationships between supervisors and each of their subordinates (Gerstner and Day, 1997). High-quality exchange relationships are based upon the mutual trust, respect, and obligation that generate coherence between an employee and his or her supervisor. Low-quality exchange relationship, on the other hand, are characterized by formal, role-defined interactions and predominantly contractual exchanges that result in hierarchy-based downward influence and distance between the parties.Social Exchange TheorySocial exchange theory by Blau (1964) assumes that a reciprocal relationship between two humans or parties can be established. In other words, if one party renders its services or anything to the other, the receiving party would be obliged to perform the same or similar function for the former, in the days to come. If this sort of reciprocal relations are carried over the period, these would result in a social bond. This bond gives birth to trust, reliance and confidence between the parties. For instance, if an employer treats his employees with care and respect, the employees would behave, in return, in the same gentle and tender way. The treatment of employees may be in the form of better performance or undertaking their duties in an honest manner. Various studies on related topics such as organizational justice (Cropanzane et. al, 2001), leadership (Graen and Scandura, 1987), psychological contract (Rousseau, 1989, 1998), and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) (Organ, 1988, 1990) conducted in different cultures have supported this theory empirically. Arguably, the reciprocal nature of human relations is more important in traditional cultures like Pakistan. The requiting norm of this theory reflects from the behaviors of Pakistani people. So, the social exchange theory provides a theoretical basis for conducting a study on behavioral aspect of relations between workers and owners, in context of Pakistan.In the light of above-mentioned theories, it is concluded that fair organizational practices promise the productive and favorable employees' attitude. Under the social exchange theory there is reciprocal relation can be seen between firm and its employee when employees who are being treated fairly found to be involved more in some extra activities beyond their formal job duties to improve the firm's effectiveness. Leader-Member exchange is one of the leadership theories which conclude that employees perform more if there is best dyadic relationship between leader and his follower. The article under discussion is found to be under the umbrella of study of organizational behaviors which is central theme of Human Resource Management. The study of organizational behaviors deals with behavioral issues of employees with the objective to improve the employees' behaviors to accomplish the organizational goals efficiently.1. Summary of the ArticleObjectives of the StudyThe study focused on OCB and examined the influence of organizational justice on OCB. The study is expected to address these two issues: (1) to investigate the influence of organizational justice types on OCB; and (2) to examine the role of LMX as a mediator in the relationship between organizational justice types and OCB.

Get help with your essayRead more about ourEssay Writing Service >

Looking for examples of OUR work?Click here to see ourEssay Writing Examples >

Want to know more about our services?Take a look at ourWriting & Marking Service Index >Research DesignResearch FrameworkOn the basis of literature review, the following research model has been established by the author to explore the relationship between organizational justice and OCB with the moderating role of LMX.Hypothesis for this study are as under:H1: Organizational justice types have significant positive relationships with OCB. The impact of interpersonal justice and informational justice are stronger on OCB than the impact of distributive justice and procedural justice.H2: Organizational justice types have significant positive relationships with LMX.H3: LMX mediates the relationship between organizational justice types and OCB in such a way that the impact of organizational justice on OCB will be smaller (partial mediation) or non-significant (full mediation) in the presence of LMX.Sampling:Data has been collected from non-supervisory employees, employed in the participating domestic commercial banks. A package containing two survey questionnaires: ?one questionnaire (Set A) was to be answered by the subordinate and another (Set B) to be answered by the supervisor in charge of the subordinate ?was distributed to participating banks. The subordinates were also given questionnaire items measuring organizational justice and LMX. The supervisors were given questionnaire items rating the subordinates' OCB and in-role behavior. A total of 350 questionnaires were distributed to 80 branches. A total of 339 completed questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 97%.Measurement:Citizenship behaviorsof employees were measured by 24-item OCB scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) was utilized to assess five dimensions of OCB.Organizational justicewas measured using the 20-items adapted from Colquitt (2001).LMXwas measured by the scale extracted by previous literature.Results:Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for all variables. Using Pearson's correlations it was found that procedural and distributive justice were significantly correlated with only one OCB dimension-altruism while Interactional justice and LMX were found to be significantly related to all OCB dimensions.Contrary to expectation, the results from Table 2 in which results are given of linear regression, it was found that only interactional justice has a significant relationship with OCB (altruism and consideration). Thus, hypothesis 1 was only partially supported. LMX was then regressed on organizational justice (Table 3). Distributive justice and interactional justice were found to have significant relationships with LMX. Hypothesis 2 was thus partially supported.OCB dimensions were then regressed on LMX. There had to be a significant relationship between the two in order to proceed to the next step of mediation testing. It was evidenced (Table 4) that LMX showed significant relationships with altruism and sportsmanship. Hypothesis 3 was also partially supported.Table 5 shows the results of the tests required for mediated regression analyses. The conditions for mediation were met for altruism but not for sportsmanship and consideration. Hypothesis 4 was thus partially supported. We found that the relationship between interactional justice and OCB which was significant in became insignificant once we included LMX as a mediator. We found that LMX fully mediated the relationship between interactional justice and altruism.Conclusions:Results shows that there is positive relationship between interactional justice and two dimensions of OCB i.e. altruism and consideration which is similar to the findings of Moorman (1991). Distributive and procedural dimensions of organizational justice have not been found as a predictor of citizenship behaviors of subordinate. When subordinates feel that they feel that there is interaction justice between them and their supervisor, they found to be involved more in citizenship behaviors. The findings also noted that this relationship strengthened when there the role of LMX is included in the model. These results are consistent with social exchange theory where it entails unspecified obligations, did not specify the exact nature of future return for contributions, is based on individual's trusting that the exchange parties will fairly discharge their obligations in the long run, and allows exchange parties reciprocate through discretionary, extrarole acts (Blau, 1964; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Moorman, 1991; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993).

Get help with your essayRead more about ourEssay Writing Service >

Looking for examples of OUR work?Click here to see ourEssay Writing Examples >

Want to know more about our services?Take a look at ourWriting & Marking Service Index >The study provides some insight for managers that in order to develop the citizenship behaviors among employees, the role of supervisors should not be ignored. Supervisors should be emphasized more so that they may build mutual interest and good dyadic relations with their subordinates. Managers need to always be supportive towards their employees and listen to their concerns and ask for their input on decisions affecting them. Open interactions with the employees will enhance their motivation toward their work and will lead them to perform in their work as well as performing OCB. The study provides evidence that interactional justice has greatest impact on OCB through the presence of LMX. This is especially true when the subordinates see their superiors giving them support and encouragement to them at work. In an environment in which relationships are important, superiors' emotional support and guidance appeared to assist subordinates in attaining higher levels of performance. In response subordinates are likely to perform some extra role beyond to their job in order to benefit other employees and organization.The study reported here is not without its limitations. The results pertaining to organizational justice and OCB may be susceptible to common method variance. The study conducted was also cross-sectional, which does not allow for an assessment of causality. Thus our results are mute where issues of causality are concerned.Critical Review:As discussed earlier, the featured article addresses one of the theories of leadership and organizational behavior. Earlier studies have been investigated the relationship of organizational justice and citizenship behaviors directly and through different moderating variables. Recently a study conducted by Karriker and Williams (2009) found the relationship between organizational justice and OCBO through OMX as mediating variable and the relationship between organizational justice and OCBS through LMX as mediating variable. Another justification of featured study is review of OCB literature by Podaskoff et al (2000) that suggests cultural influences on OCB as a future research agenda. Exploratory findings of Organ and Ryan (1995) also suggested that OCB may be evaluated and interpreted differently in different cultures/nations. They identify individualism/collectivism and power distance as potentional source of variation in research findings obtained in US context. For example they suggest initiative in workplace may be different in high power distance countries as employees may limit themselves to what they are told. They also mentioned the possible impact of cultural differences on measurement of OCB (Organ and Ryan, 1995).Organization justice and OCBs have received ample attentions by the researchers as it is found to be positively linked with individual and organizational productivity. Vital role of organizational justice in creating citizenship behaviors has been emphasized by researchers in different aspects (Farh et al., 1990; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Moorman, 1991; Moorman et al, 1993; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993). Employees' perception regarding fairness of outcomes and procedures has been considered as a major motivational basis for developing citizenship behaviors among employees (Organ, 1990).A study conducted by Moorman et, al., (1998) found that there is positive relationship between procedural justice and perceived organizational support and between perceived organizational support and three of the five organizational citizenship behavior dimensions. However, by including the effects of POS as a mediating variable, we found stronger support for a fully mediated model of the effects of procedural justice on OCB. Findings of this study provided support to earlier studies by Organ and Ryan, (1995) which revealed that fairness at workplace play major role in creating citizenship behaviors among employees.

Get help with your essayRead more about ourEssay Writing Service >

Looking for examples of OUR work?Click here to see ourEssay Writing Examples >

Want to know more about our services?Take a look at ourWriting & Marking Service Index >Researchers have also been attempting to examine the relationship between organizational justice and OCB through mediating variables. In this respect, Konovsky and Pugh (1994) analyzed the mediating role of trust between justice and performance relationships using the supervisor as proxy for the organization, rather than directly addressing the individual's level of trust in the organization itself. The study examined the mediating role of trust in supervisor between the relationship of procedural justice and OCB and found full support for this relationship.Extending this framework, Aryee et al. (2002) investigated the mediating role of trust in the supervisor and trust in the organization and found support for mediating role of trust in the organization between organizational justice (distributive, procedural and interactional) with job satisfaction, turnover intent and organizational commitment while trust in supervisor found to have mediating relationship between interactional justice only with OCBO and OCBS. Moorman and Niehoff (1998) conducted a study to measure the relationship of procedural justice with OCBs through mediating role of perceived organizational support (POS) and found that POS fully mediate between the relationship of organizational justice and OCBs. Masterson et al (2000) found support for the mediating role of POS in the relationship of organizational justice and OCBO.Karriker, JH and ML Williams, (2009) conducted a study to find the relationship of organizational justice on OCBS (citizenship behaviors that benefit to supervisors) and OCBO (citizenship behaviors that benefit to the organization) and found full support between system-referenced justice outcomes and OCBO and mixed support for agent-referenced justice perception and OCBS. Specifically, system-referenced distributive and procedural justice were not found to have significant impact on OCBO, yet agent-referenced distributive justice had a significant direct relationship with OCBS, and agent-referenced distributive and procedural justice had significant indirect relationships with OCBS. In addition, interpersonal justice found to have direct impact on OCBO. Here, in this study the relations of interpersonal justice only have been measured with OCB rather than full model of interactional justice including interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. Impact of system-referenced distributive and procedural justice was not supported in this study while one dimension of interactional justice i.e. interpersonal justice was found to have direct relationship with OCBO.Trust between employees and their supervisors is found to be strong predictor of OCB in the context of work environment. Leadership behaviors and level of OCBs have also been under the discussion of researchers in the area of social sciences. In this regard, Pdosakeff et. al, (1998) examined the aggregate effects of the set of transformational leader behaviors on OCBs noted found the indirect relationship between leader behaviors and OCBs. The study suggests that to find the support between leader behaviors and OCBs, organizational trust and employees' satisfaction have to be included in the model as transformational leader behaviors impact both trust and employees' performance while on the other hand only trust is significantly related to the OCBs. In contrast, transactional leader behavior on OCBs found to be positively related to two dimensions i.e. altruism and sportsmanship while no effect has been found between transactional leader behavior and other three dimensions of OCB. Masterson et al. (2000) explored that "high-quality LMX relationships lead employees to engage in behaviors that are directly related to their supervisors, such as in-role behavior and organizational citizenship behaviors". They found that LMX mediated the relationships between interactional justice and both job satisfaction and supervisor-focused citizenship behaviors, OCBS.

Get help with your essayRead more about ourEssay Writing Service >

Looking for examples of OUR work?Click here to see ourEssay Writing Examples >

Want to know more about our services?Take a look at ourWriting & Marking Service Index >Extending the research on the said area, the authors attempted to shed light on organizational justice and OCB directly and through the mediating role of LMX. Findings of the study opened some new avenue for social sciences researchers. Karriker and Williams (2009) investigated the relationship of organizational justice with OCBO through the mediating variable of organization-member exchange (OMX) and relationship of organizational justice with OCBS with the mediating role of LMX. The authors applied the model with some valuable changes in Malaysian culture and provide useful insight for managers to improve the level of OCBs. Over all the study is very well organized, address an unattended area; but the study seems to be failed to discuss the literature on organizational justice due to which reader may face difficulties to build logical connection between organizational justice and OCB. Further the study could not properly differentiate between the dimensions of OCBs that benefit to the individual and that benefit to organization.The author made good attempt to collect the data from respondents and their supervisors but the problem in this scenario that there may some intergroup conflict that may bias the result. To improve the accuracy regarding OCB data, peer review should also be incorporated in the data. As for as statistical tools are concerned, Zero-order Correlations, Linear and Mediating Regression test have been applied to analyze the data. The data should also be analyzed through Structure Equation Model (SEM) that is commonly used for the model where mediating and moderating variables are included in the model.

Find out more from UK Essays here:http://www.ukessays.com/essays/management/the-organization-justice.php#ixzz3Cjq7AVKoOverview[edit]Organizational justice is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct. The four proposed components are distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Research also suggests the importance of affect and emotion in the appraisal of the fairness of a situation as well as ones behavioral and attitudinal reactions to the situation (e.g., Barsky, Kaplan, & Beal, 2011). A myriad of literature in the industrial/organizational psychology field has examined organizational justice as well as the associated outcomes. Perceptions of justice influence many key organizational outcomes such as motivation (Latham & Pinder, 2005) and job satisfaction (Al-Zubi, 2010).Corporate social responsibility[edit]A concept related to organizational justice iscorporate social responsibility(CSR). Organizational justice generally refers to perceptions of fairness in treatment of individuals internal to that organization while corporate social responsibility focuses on the fairness of treatment of entities external to the organization. Corporate social responsibility refers to a mechanism by which businesses monitor and regulate their performance in line with moral and societal standards such that it has positive influences on all of its stakeholders (Carroll, 1999). Thus, CSR involves organizations going above and beyond what is moral or ethical and behaving in ways that benefit members of society in general. It has been proposed that an employees perceptions of their organizations level of corporate social responsibility can impact that individuals own attitudes and perceptions of justice even if they are not the victim of unfair acts (Rupp et al., 2006).Roots in equity theory[edit]The idea of organizational justice stems fromequity theory(Adams, 1963, 1965), which posits that judgments of equity and inequity are derived from comparisons between ones self and others based on inputs and outcomes. Inputs refer to what a person perceives to contribute (e.g., knowledge and effort) while outcomes are what an individual perceives to get out of an exchange relationship (e.g., pay and recognition). Comparison points against which these inputs and outcomes are judged may be internal (ones self at an earlier time) or external (other individuals).Types[edit]Three main proposed components of organizational justice are distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (which includes informational and interpersonal justice).Distributive[edit]Distributive justiceis conceptualized as the fairness associated with decision outcomes and distribution of resources. The outcomes or resources distributed may be tangible (e.g., pay) or intangible (e.g., praise). Perceptions of distributive justice can be fostered when outcomes are perceived to be equally applied (Adams, 1965).Procedural[edit]Procedural justiceis defined as the fairness of the processes that lead to outcomes. When individuals feel that they have a voice in the process or that the process involves characteristics such as consistency, accuracy, ethicality, and lack of bias then procedural justice is enhanced (Leventhal, 1980).Interactional[edit]Interactional justicerefers to the treatment that an individual receives as decisions are made and can be promoted by providing explanations for decisions and delivering the news with sensitivity and respect (Bies & Moag, 1986). A construct validation study by Colquitt (2001) suggests that interactional justice should be broken into two components: interpersonal and informational justice.Interpersonal justicerefers to perceptions of respect and propriety in ones treatment whileinformational justicerelates to the adequacy of the explanations given in terms of their timeliness, specificity, and truthfulness.Interpersonal justice reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities and third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomesInformational justice focuses on explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashionProposed models[edit]Three different models have been proposed to explain the structure of organizational justice perceptions including a two factor model, a three factor model, and a four factor model. Many researchers have studied organizational justice in terms of the three factor model (e.g., DeConinck, 2010; Liljegren & Ekberg, 2010) while others have used a two factor model in which interpersonal justice is subsumed under procedural justice while yet some other studies suggest a four factor model best fits the data (Colquitt, 2001). Greenberg (1990) proposed a two-factor model and Sweeney and McFarlin (1993) found support for a two-factor model composed of distributive and procedural justice. Through the use ofstructural equation modeling, Sweeney and McFarlin found that distributive justice was related to outcomes that are person-level (e.g., pay satisfaction) while procedural justice was related to organization-level outcomes (e.g., organizational commitment).The accuracy of the two-factor model was challenged by studies that suggested a third factor (interactional justice) may be involved. Bies and Moag (1986) argue that interactional justice is distinct from procedural justice because it represents the social exchange component of the interaction and the quality of treatment whereas procedural justice represents the processes that were used to arrive at the decision outcomes. Generally researchers are in agreement regarding the distinction between procedural and distributive justice but there is more controversy over the distinction between interactional and procedural justice (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Colquitt (2001) demonstrated that a four-factor model (including procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice) fit the data significantly better than a two or three factor model. Colquitts construct validation study also showed that each of the four components have predictive validity for different key organizational outcomes (e.g., commitment and rule compliance).Another model of organizational justice proposed by Byrne (1999) and colleagues (Byrne & Cropanzano, 2000) suggested that organizational justice is a multi-foci construct, one where employees see justice as coming from a source - either the organization or their supervisor. Thus, rather than focus on justice as the three or four factor component model, Byrne suggested that employees personify the organization and they distinguish between whether they feel the organization or supervisor have treated them fairly (interactional), use fair procedures (procedural), or allocate rewards or assignments fairly (distributive justice). A number of researchers used this model exploring the possibility that justice is more than just 3 or 4 factors (e.g., Karriker & Williams, 2009).The role of affect in organizational justice perceptions[edit]One of the key constructs that has been shown to play a role in the formation of organizational justice perceptions isaffect. The precise role of affect HH in organizational justice perceptions depends on the form of affectivity being examined (emotions, mood, disposition) as well as the context and type of justice being measured. Affect may serve as an antecedent, outcome, or even a mediator of organizational justice perceptions.A recent article (Barksy, Kaplan, & Beal, 2011) provides a model that explains the role of affect and emotions at various stages of the appraisal and reaction stages of justice perception formation and illustrates that injustice is generally an affect laden and subjective experience. Affect and emotions can be part of the reactions to perceived injustice, as studies have shown that the more injustice that is perceived, the higher degrees of negative emotions are experienced. In addition, affect can act as a mediator between justice perceptions and actions taken to redress the perceived injustice. Affect plays this role in equity theory such that negative affective reactions act as a mediator between perceptions and actions, as emotional reactions to justice motivate individuals to take action to restore equity.A recent meta-analysis by Barsky and Kaplan (2007) condenses many studies on this topic and explains that state and trait level affect can influence ones perceptions of justice. The findings of Barsky and Kaplan show that both state and trait level negative affect can act as antecedents to justice perceptions. State and trait level negative affect are negatively associated with interactional, procedural, and distributive justice perceptions. Conversely, positive state and trait affectivity was linked to higher ratings of interactional, procedural and distributive justice.Based on the research regarding the central role of affect in justice perceptions, Lang, Bliese, Lang, and Adler (2011) extended this research and studied the idea that sustained clinical levels of negative affect (depression) could be a precursor to perceptions of injustice in organizations. Lang et al. (2011) tested longitudinal cross-lagged effects between organizational justice perceptions and employee depressive symptoms and found that depressive symptoms do lead to subsequent organizational justice perceptions. Thus, affect can serve as an antecedent to justice perceptions in this instance.Antecedents of organizational justice perceptions[edit]Employee participation[edit]One antecedent to perceptions of organizational justice is the extent to which employees feel that they are involved in decision-making or other organizational procedures. Higher levels of justice are perceived when employees feel that they have input in processes than when employees do not perceive that they have the opportunity to participate (Greenberg & Folger, 1983; Bies & Shapiro, 1988). The opportunity or ability to participate in decision making improves an individuals perceptions of procedural justice, even when the decision is unfavorable to the individual (Bies & Shapiro, 1988). In addition, other studies have shown that employee input is related to both procedural and interpersonal justice perceptions (Kernan & Hanges, 2002).Communication[edit]A second antecedent to organizational justice perceptions is organizational communication with employees. Communication has been shown to be related to interpersonal and informational justice perceptions (Kernan & Hanges, 2002). The quality of communication by an organization or manager can improve justice perceptions by improving employee perceptions of manager trustworthiness and also by reducing feelings of uncertainty (Kernan & Hanges, 2002). It is important that the information provided be accurate, timely, and helpful in order for the impact on justice perceptions to be positive (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991).Justice climate[edit]Perceptions of organizational justice can be influenced by others, such as co-workers and team members. Recent research suggests that team level perceptions of justice form what is called a justice climate which can impact individuals own views of justice (Li & Cropanzano, 2009). Employees working within a team may share their perceptions with one another which can lead to a shared interpretation of the fairness of events (Roberson & Colquitt, 2005). Research findings show that individuals can learn justice evaluations from team members and these can lead to homogeneity of justice perceptions within teams, creating a strong justice climate (Roberson & Colquitt, 2005). Thus, group-level perceptions of justice can be conceptualized as an antecedent to individuals justice perceptions.Outcomes of organizational justice perceptions[edit]Employees perceptions of injustice within the organization can result in a myriad of outcomes both positive and negative. Outcomes are affected by perceptions of organizational justice as a whole or by different factors of organizational justice. Commonly cited outcomes affected by organizational justice include trust, performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), absenteeism, turnover, and emotional exhaustion.Trust[edit]Main article:Trust (social sciences)The relationship between trust and organizational justice perceptions is based onreciprocity. Trust in the organization is built from the employees belief that since current organizational decisions are fair, future organizational decisions will be fair. The continuance of employee trust in the organization and the organization continuing to meet the employees expectations of fairness creates the reciprocal relationship between trust and organizational justice (DeConick, 2010). Research has found that procedural justice is the strongest predictor of organizational trust (Hubbell & Chory-As