Search

We systematically analyze the role of social comparison processes in organizations. Specifically, we describe how social comparison processes have been used to explain six key areas of organizational inquiry: (1) organizational justice, (2) performance appraisal, (3) virtual work environments, (4) affective behavior in the workplace, (5) stress, and (6) leadership. Additionally, we describe how unique contextual factors in organizations offer new insight into two widely studied sub-processes of social comparison, acquiring social information and thinking about that information. Our analyses underscore the merit of integrating organizational phenomena and social comparison processes in future research and theory.

Both laboratory and field experiments have limitations that likely account for the recent decline in their usage among organizational researchers. In this article, we introduce situated experiments as an experimental approach that optimizes the strengths of both laboratory and field experiments in organizational research while mitigating the weaknesses of each. We highlight four recently published studies using situated experiments. Drawing on these examples, we illustrate how the proper use of situated experiments can minimize threats to internal validity and ensure the ethical treatment of research participants.

Customer service representatives ( N =270) were underpaid for completing an hour-long questionnaire after working hours. They were told that the payment came either from the company itself or from a group of individual managers. Participants were given an opportunity to steal by being allowed to take their payment from a bowl of pennies under conditions in which they believed that the actual amount they took could not be detected. Employees who had attained Kohlberg's conventional level of moral development refrained from stealing money when they worked in an office that had an ethics program in place. However, those at the preconventional level of development and who worked at an office without an ethics program stole from their employers. By contrast, participants who believed that the money came from individual managers refrained from stealing under any conditions. These results are explained in terms of the person-by-situation interactionist approach to ethical behavior. Their practical implications are discussed as well.

I argue that organizational researchers and theorists should address seven important issues inspired by Cropanzano et al.'s (2001) “what, why, and how” questions about organizational justice. Specifically, our collective justice agenda should examine the following questions: (1) What is the conceptual status of interactional justice? (2) How are reactions to injustice related to the source of injustice? (3) Are the motives underlying justice behavior really distinct? (4) What is the role of control in creating justice? (5) How are referent others selected? (6) How are “would, could, and should” judgments interrelated? and (7) Is justice a cause or consequence of social motives?

Contents: Preface. Part I: Introduction. J.A. Colquitt, J. Greenberg, C.P. Zapata-Phelan, What Is Organizational Justice? A Historical Overview of the Field. Part II: Construct Validity Issues. M.L. Ambrose, A. Arnaud, Are Procedural Justice and Distributive Justice Conceptually Distinct? R.J. Bies, Are Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice Conceptually Distinct? J.A. Colquitt, J.C. Shaw, How Should Organizational Justice Be Measured? Part III: The Justice Judgment Process. D.L. Shapiro, J.M. Brett, What Is the Role of Control in Organizational Justice? J.Z. Gillespie, J. Greenberg, Are the Goals of Organizational Justice Self-Interested? R. Folger, R. Cropanzano, B. Goldman, What Is the Relationship Between Justice and Morality? R.J. Lewicki, C. Wiethoff, E.C. Tomlinson, What Is the Role of Trust in Organizational Justice? Part IV: Justice Effects. K. Van den Bos, What Is Responsible for the Fair Process Effect? D.E. Conlon, C.J. Meyer, J.M. Nowakowski, How Does Organizational Justice Affect Performance, Withdrawal, and Counterproductive Behavior? S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler, How Can Theories of Organizational Justice Explain the Effects of Fairness? R.H. Moorman, Z.S. Byrne, How Does Organizational Justice Affect Organizational Citizenship Behavior? Part V: Justice Applications. R. Vermunt, H. Steensma, How Can Justice Be Used to Manage Stress in Organizations? S.W. Gilliland, J.M.S. Hale, How Can Justice Be Used to Improve Employee Selection Practices? E.F. Stone-Romero, D.L. Stone, How Do Organizational Justice Concepts Relate to Discrimination and Prejudice? D.R. Bobocel, A. Zdaniuk, How Can Explanations Be Used to Foster Organizational Justice? D.P. Skarlicki, G.P. Latham, How Can Training Be Used to Foster Organizational Justice? Part VI: Generalizability Issues. J. Brockner, B. Wiesenfeld, How, When, and Why Does Outcome Favorability Interact With Procedural Fairness? K. Leung, How Generalizable Are Justice Effects Across Cultures? Part VII: Integration. J.A. Colquitt, J. Greenberg, B.A. Scott, Organizational Justice: Where Do We Stand?

Contents: E.A. Fleishman, J.N. Cleveland, Series Foreword. Preface. Part I:Individual Processes. S.G. Barsade, A.P. Brief, S.E. Spataro, The Affective Revolution in Organizational Behavior: The Emergence of a Paradigm. J.C. Quick, C.L. Cooper, D.L. Nelson, J.D. Quick, J.H. Gavin, Stress, Health, and Well-Being at Work. D. Eden, Self-Fulfilling Prophecies in Organizations. Part II:Interpersonal Processes. B.R. Ragins, J.A. Gonzalez, Understanding Diversity in Organizations: Getting a Grip on a Slippery Construct. J.A. Colquitt, J. Greenberg, Organizational Justice: A Fair Assessment of the State of Literature. G.R. Ferris, F.R. Blass, C. Douglas, R.W. Kolodinsky, D.C. Treadway, Personal Reputation in Organizations. R.J. Bennett, S.L. Robinson, The Past, Present, and Future of Workplace Deviance Research. K.T. Dirks, J.M. Parks, Conflicting Stories: The State of the Science of Conflict. Part III:Cross-Level Themes. J.R. Edwards, Construct Validation in Organizational Behavior Research. H. Aguinis, C.A. Henle, The Search for Universals in Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior. Part IV:Commentary. E.A. Locke, Good Definitions: The Epistemological Foundation of Scientific Progress.

To highlight the advances and limitations in the study of organizational justice as reflected by the articles in this issue, the field is characterized as being in its intellectual adolescence. Following this analogy, some signs of scientific maturity are noted. Among these are (a) increased attention to the connections between organizational justice and various organizational processes, (b) expanded efforts toward conceptual refinement, and (c) greater reliance on research conducted in natural settings. At the same time, the adolescent state of the field is also marked by its intellectual awkwardness and immaturity. Indications of this include (a) the absence of guiding theory, (b) an underdeveloped research agenda, and (c) an overreliance on the use of ad hoc measurements. Based on these limitations, suggestions are made for ways of nurturing the field's development. The article concludes with an optimistic vision of tomorrow's field of organizational justice.

In response to demands and opportunities of the labor market, contemporary employers and employees voluntarily are entering into highly customized agreements regarding nonstandard employment terms. We refer to such idiosyncratic deals as “i-deals,” acknowledging that these arrangements are intended to benefit all parties. Examples of i-deals include an employee with highly coveted skills who is compensated more generously than other employees doing comparable work, and an employee who is granted atypically flexible working hours to accommodate certain personal life demands. The nonstandard nature of i-deals is likely to prompt questions about the fairness of the arrangement among three principal stakeholders – employees who receive the i-deal, managers with whom the i-deal is negotiated, and the co-workers of these employees and managers. We analyze issues of fairness that arise in the relationships among all three pairings of these stakeholders through the lenses of four established forms of organizational justice – distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice. Our discussion sheds light on previously unexplored nuances of i-deals and identifies several neglected theoretical issues of organizational justice. In addition to highlighting these conceptual advances, we also discuss methods by which the fairness of i-deals can be promoted.

This article reviews the existing research and theory on procedural justice and considers how it may be applied to the study of organizational behavior. It begins by distinguishing between the concepts of distributive justice and procedural justice and noting the historical contexts within which they emerged. Existing conceptual contributions and the research inspired by them are reviewed. The few existing studies applying procedural justice notions to organizational contexts are summarized, and the contributions of the articles to the present issue of this journal are reviewed relative to these efforts. The article closes by discussing the dual benefits of studying procedural justice in organizations: the enhanced understanding of the concept of justice and the behavior of people in organizations.

One-hundred-seventeen college students performed a task on which they received a negative, neutral, or positive performance evaluation. The evaluations were made by the experimenter who (i) kept a diary documenting subjects' performance, (ii) observed their performance but did not keep a diary, or (iii) made the evaluation on no apparent basis (control). It was found that both the evaluation procedure and the evaluation outcome itself were perceived as being fairer when diaries were used as the basis for making evaluations relative to either subjects in the observation procedure group or the control group. The practical implications of these findings for performance appraisals are considered along with the implications for conceptual work on procedural justice.

Traditionally, concern about matters of justice and fairness among scientists interested in organizational behavior has focused on ways of determining equitable payment and assessing behavioral and attitudinal reactions to inequitable payment (Greenberg, 1982). This orientation toward money as the primary medium through which justice is studied is reflected not only in some of the other contributions to this volume on justice, but also in much of the organizational literature (e.g., Vecchio, 1982). At the same time, however, there also appears to be a growing recognition that matters of justice are involved in several nonfinancial exchanges taking place within organizations (see Nord, 1980). The chapter by Martin (Chapter 17, this volume) and the recent chapter by Crosby (1984) in an organizationally oriented serial represent excellent examples of this trend. Much of the present author’s recent work on procedural justice (e.g., Folger & Greenberg, 1985, Greenberg, in press-a) also reflects an appreciation for the idea that considerations of justice are involved in many forms of nonmonetary social exchange in organizations.