Search

With an eye toward promoting applications of organizational justice, I respond to commentaries on my focal article (Greenberg, 2009a). Specifically, I challenge questionable claims regarding (a) characterization of applied research, (b) why we don't conduct more applied justice research, (c) moral versus instrumental rationales for promoting justice, (d) the validity of intervention studies, and (e) interpretations of Lewin's classic observation about the practical value of theory. I also identify and comment upon two suggestions for promoting applied justice research: (a) promoting cooperation between researchers and practitioners and (b) conducting comprehensive, integrative interventions.

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.

Idiosyncratic employment arrangements (i-deals) stand to benefit the individual employee as well as his or her employer. However, unless certain conditions apply, coworkers may respond negatively to these arrangements. We distinguish functional i-deals from their dysfunctional counterparts and highlight evidence of i-deals in previous organizational research. We develop propositions specifying both how ideals are formed and how they impact workers and coworkers. Finally, we outline the implications i-deals have for research and for managing contemporary employment relationships.

Individual predispositions toward time urgency were assessed among 118 emergency room nurses and 145 small-town librarians. Following from research on person–job fit, according to which people perform better when the demands of the situation match their individual characteristics than when these are mismatched, it was hypothesized that nurses (who typically face high time-urgent demands) would perform better when they scored high in time urgency, and that librarians (who typically face low time-urgent demands) would perform better when they scored low in time urgency. The results, based on a standardized measure of task performance, were precisely as expected. The practical ramifications of these findings are discussed along with the implications for research on person–job fit.

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.

Two studies using different methods examined the effects of people's status in a social encounter, the favorability of the outcome of the encounter, and the procedural fairness of the other party d...

A central premise of the procedural justice literature—based on studies conducted mainly in the United States—is that people react unfavorably when they have little voice in a decision-making process. The studies reported here evaluated whether the magnitude of voice effects varies across cultures. As predicted, Studies 1–3 showed that the tendency for people to respond less favorably (i.e., with lower organizational commitment) to lower levels of voice was greater in low power distance cultures (United States and Germany) than in high power distance cultures (People's Republic of China, Mexico, and Hong Kong). And in a single cultural setting, Study 4 found a similar interactive effect of voice and people's power distance beliefs on employees' work attitudes and job performance. Theoretical implications for the justice and cross-cultural literatures are discussed, as are practical implications and suggestions for future research.

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?

Structured interviews with 996 recently fired or laid-off workers provided data for analyses of the situational and psychological antecedents of both thinking about filing a wrongful-termination claim and actually filing such a claim. Potential antecedents were drawn from relational theories of organizational justice, economic theories about claiming, and sociolegal studies of claiming in other contexts. Wrongful-termination claims were most strongly correlated with the way workers felt they had been treated at the time of termination and with their expected winnings from such a claim. Structural equation model analyses of panel data from follow-up interviews with 163 respondents four months later showed that the psychological variables were, in fact, causal antecedents rather than consequences of claiming thoughts and actions. These findings support relational models of organizational justice and lead to practical suggestions for managing the termination process so as to avoid wrongful-termination suits.

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?

Three experiments were conducted to examine subjects’ impressions of the performance of employees believed to be new to their jobs. Experiment 1 was a laboratory experiment in which 88 undergraduate students evaluated the performance of an instructor giving a lecture. Experiment 2 was a naturalistic field experiment in which 118 shoppers at a discount store evaluated the performance of the employees who bagged their orders. Finally, Experiment 3 was a field experiment in which 69 people responding to a telephone survey evaluated the performance of the interviewer. In all three experiments, participants who were not adversely affected by the workers’ job performance evaluated the workers more highly when they were believed to be new than when they had no knowledge of workers’ experience. In this case, the positive impressions sought by identifying one's newness were observed. These effects were also found among subjects rating workers who performed their jobs well despite their new status, providing evidence of an augmentation effect. However, subjects who were adversely affected by the workers’ actions evaluated workers lower when they were believed to be new than when they had no knowledge of workers’ experience. As such, the desired impression management effects backfired. The practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Announcements of a work site smoking ban were made to 732 clerical workers. The presentations differed in the amount of information given about the need for the ban and the degree of interpersonal sensitivity shown over the personal impact of the ban. Immediately after the announcement, questionnaires were completed to assess participants' acceptance of the ban. High amounts of information thoroughness and of social sensitivity, given separately, enhanced acceptance of the ban, but their combined effects were even greater. Although heavy smokers were least accepting of the ban, they showed the greatest incremental gain in acceptance after exposure to thorough information presented in a highly sensitive manner. By contrast, nonsmokers' acceptance of the ban was uniformly unaffected by the way it was presented to them. Regardless of how much they smoked, all participants recognized the procedural fairness associated with giving thorough information in a socially sensitive manner.

Part 1. Introduction. M.S. Edwards, J. Greenberg, What is Insidious Workplace Behavior? Part 2. Forms of Insidious Workplace Behavior. J.H. Neuman, L. Keashly, Means, Motive Opportunity and Aggressive Workplace Behavior. M.A. Seabright, M.L. Ambrose, M. Schminke, Two Images of Workplace Sabotage. D.A. Jones, Getting Even for Interpersonal Mistreatment in the Workplace: Triggers of Revenge Motives and Behavior. C.M. Pearson, Research on Workplace Incivility and its Connection to Practice. C. Fitzgerald Boxer, T.E. Ford, Sexist Humor in the Workplace: A Case of Subtle Harassment. S.L. Glover, Lying to Bosses, Subordinates, Peers and the Outside World: Motivations and Consequences. Part 3. Methodological Issues. S.M. Jex, J.L. Burnfield Geimer, O. Clark, A.M. Guidroz, J.E. Yugo, Challenges and Recommendations in the Measurement of Workplace Incivility. P.E. Spector, O.B. Rodopman, Methodological Issues in Studying Insidious Workplace Behavior. Part 4. Integration. M.S. Edwards, J. Greenberg, Issues and Challenges in Studying Insidious Workplace Behavior.

In Chapter 1 of this volume we defined insidious workplace behavior (IWB) as a form of intentionally harmful workplace behavior that is legal, subtle and low level (rather than severe), repeated over time, and directed at individuals or organizations. In other words, IWB is not a unique type of behavior itself but a set of characteristics that describe various types of deviant behavior. Exemplifying this point, this book addresses several types of deviant behavior, including aggression, sabotage, revenge, incivility, sexist humor and harassment, and lying, as well as the challenges of measuring and researching IWB. Throughout their discussions, the authors emphasize that although IWB may appear innocuous, it can have genuine and significant negative implications for employees and organizations alike. It is our hope that this volume will inspire not only further theoretical work but ultimately efforts to reduce IWB in the workplace.

Members of high-school swim teams (n = 120) swam a 100-yard freestyle either as members of a four-person relay team or as individuals swimming alone. In all cases, a performance time goal established in pretesting to be perceived as difficult, but acceptable, was announced by the coaches (i.e., the desired time to swim the required distance by either an individual or by the relay team as a whole). Further announced was a punishment threat for failing to meet this standard—a number of penalty laps established in pretesting to be perceived as either a severe threat, a moderate threat, or no threat. Consistent with previous research on the social loafing effect, it was found that individuals in groups performed worse (i.e., swam slower) than individuals performing alone under conditions in which punishment threats were not issued. In contrast, when substandard performance was threatened with punishment, group performance improved, and the social loafing effect was attenuated. The implications and limitations of these findings for maximizing task performance are discussed.

The present article discusses the state of the science regarding the connection between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as reflected by the articles included in this issue. The research described in these articles reaches a conclusion in need of further elaboration—namely, that people will behave altruistically toward the oroganizations in which they work when they believe those organizations have treated them fairly. Various conceptual issues are discussed. These include: the willingness of people to express inequity distress by withholding OCB, the relative importance of procedural justice compared to distributive justice as a determinant of OCB (especially the social aspects of procedural justice), and the extent to which a reduction in OCB may reflect a desire to influence another individual, or the organization in general. A variety of methodological issues are also discussed. In this connection, it is suggested that correlational, questionnaire measures be supplemented by open-ended interview studies as well as laboratory investigations. Moreover, if questionnaires continue to be used, then it is recommended that attempts be made to improve the validity of both measures of justice and OCB.

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.

Based on the post hoc sorting of the narrative comments given by supervisors of their subordinates' performance, four major substantive categories of performance explanations emerged. Explanations focusing on the meritorious aspects of performance were typically used to explain high ratings, and apologies typically accompanied the administration of low ratings. Average ratings typically received no explanation. Perceived as fairest were ratings that enhanced the subordinate's self-image. The present results demonstrate the importance of explanations in enhancing perceptions of fairness.

In a laboratory experiment support was found for the idea that inflated performance evaluations may be due to a self-serving bias — the tendency for raters to highly evaluate subordinates' performance so that they may themselves appear to be successful. Two hundred sixteen students evaluating another's work gave higher ratings of performance quantity and quality to employees they counseled about their work than to others with whom they had either only social contact or no contact at all. This effect remained even when raters were not being evaluated by an authority figure, suggesting that the inflated ratings were the result of an interest in enhancing one's own self-image (a perceptual bias) rather than cultivating the favorable impression of another (a response bias). The conceptual and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Employee theft rates were measured in manufacturing plants during a period in which pay was temporarily reduced by 15%. Compared with pre- or postreduction pay periods (or with control groups whose pay was unchanged), groups whose pay was reduced had significantly higher theft rates. When the basis for the pay cuts was thoroughly and sensitively explained to employees, feelings of inequity were lessened, and the theft rate was reduced as well. The data support equity theory's predictions regarding likely responses to underpayment and extend recently accumulated evidence demonstrating the mitigating effects of adequate explanations on feelings of inequity.

Self-reports of insomnia were collected among 467 nurses working at 4 hospitals. At 2 of these hospitals, a change in pay policy resulted in reduced pay for all nurses, whereas nurses' pay was unchanged at the other 2 hospitals. Nursing supervisors at 1 hospital in each group received training in promoting interactional justice, whereas no training was provided at the other 2 hospitals. Reflecting the stressful nature of underpayment, insomnia was significantly greater among nurses whose pay was reduced than among those whose pay remained unchanged. However, the degree of insomnia was significantly lower among nurses whose supervisors were trained in interactional justice, both immediately after training and 6 months later. These findings demonstrate the buffering effects of interactionally fair treatment on reactions to underpayment.

Female undergraduates scoring high and low on the Mirels-Garrett Protestant Ethic (PE) Scale divided a fixed reward between themselves and a co-worker following competition on a clerical task. Half the subjects were told that they had either won or lost in fair competition. The remaining subjects were told they had either won or lost because of an error that gave a favorable advantage to one of the performers. When the competition was fair, high PEs distributed the rewards available according to an equity norm, keeping more than half when they won and less than half when they lost. When the competition was unfair, high PEs attempted to reestablish fairness by compensating the performer with the unfair disadvantage. However, low PEs kept approximately half the reward regardless of fairness and regardless of whether they won or lost.

Two studies are reported which show how endorsement of the Protestant ethic is related to the perceived fairness of using various equity inputs. In Experiment 1, male undergraduates scoring high and low on the Protestant Ethic (PE) Scale made salary decisions for hypothetical workers who differed with respect to their performance quantity and duration. High PEs paid workers in proportion to their total productivity by taking into account both quantity and duration. However, low PEs ignored differences in quantity by paying workers the same amount, but did pay in proportion to duration. In the follow-up study, high PEs reported that it is fairer to base reward on performance when differences are attributable to internal causes than external causes, while the reverse was found for low PEs.

There can be little doubt about the existence of certain trappings of success in organizations—physical symbols (cf . Good sell, 1977 ) reflecting the organizational status of job incumbents (Steele, 1973). Indeed, previous research has confirmed that certain indicators of status demarcation (cf. Konar & Sundstrom, 1985) , such as large offices (Langdon, 1966), carpeting (Joiner, 1976) , and proximity to windows (Halloran, 1978), are recognized as rewards symbolizing one's high standing in an organizational status hierarchy. Although these environmental rewards typically are associated with relatively highstatus individuals, thereby reinforcing the social order of organizations (Edelman, 1978), there are some occasions in which the status of th e jo b incumbent and th e physical symbols associated with that status are not matched (Wineman, 1982). Such instances may be recognized as cases of status inconsistency, (cf. Stryke r & Macke, 1978) and, as such, reactions to them may be explained by equity theory (e.g., Adams, 1965; Walster , Walster, & Berscheid, 1978).

Two-hundred male undergraduates, individually and in groups of five, divided a fixed reward between two performers with unequal inputs under conditions in which they either expected or did not expect future interaction with recipients. Individuals who anticipated future interaction with recipients divided the reward equally, while groups divided the reward equitably. When interaction was not expected, individuals divided the reward equitably by discriminating between recipients, while groups made more extreme discriminations (the group polarization effect). Experiencing group discussions made individuals more confident in the fairness of their subsequent allocations. The results are discussed in terms of the social and informational influences of groups on allocation decisions.

Three hundred and thirty-four adults were surveyed regarding their satisfaction with the postal service either 2 weeks before a 2c increase in first-class postage, 2 days after, or 4 weeks after. Two days after the increase, relatively low users reported more dissatisfaction, while high use customers reported increased satisfaction. The personal cost associated with inequitable conditions (higher price for same services) appears to moderate the use of justificatory responses. Four weeks after the increase, satisfaction returned to pre-increase levels, suggesting that feelings of inequity created by the price increase were temporary.

Experimental research relating seating position to group interaction was critically reviewed. Studies have found that persons in central seating positions were able to maintain eye contact with the most group mem bers, thereby enhancing their ability to interact with the group and emerge as the leader. Tasks requiring interpersonal communication were associated with the use of close seating arrangements, and tasks requir ing independent activities were associated with distant seating ar rangements. Research on affiliative relations found that physical close ness enhances friendship formation and is a reliable sociometric index of friendship choices within groups. Final discussion centered on the prac tical implications of these findings for the group training session. It was stressed that group trainers learn to alter the seating positions of mem bers in order to facilitate the attainment of group goals.

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.

It was proposed that harmdoers who psychologically suffer (e.g., experience remorse, guilt) through victimizing another will be viewed as having already taken a step toward righting the injustice caused the victim. Consequently, they should be asked to make fewer reparations and assigned a lesser fine than those harmdoers who do not express guilt or remorse. Male and female subjects read scenarios depicting an accident in which the harmdoer either admitted or did not admit responsibility (Experiment 1) or expressed various degrees of remorsefulness (Experiment 3). Both investigations indicated that a show of remorse or of a remorseful gesture (i.e., assuming responsibility) can partially vindicate harmdoers by requiring them to make fewer reparations to a victim (Experiment 1) or pay less of a fine (Experiment 3) among females only. Thus psychological damages incurred in a wrongful act can serve as a “down payment” toward restoring justice. In corroboration with these findings of sex differences, Experiment 2 revealed that females consider to a greater extent than males reasons such as a harmdoer's feelings when assigning a fine.

Selection of an extremely difficult performance goal is conceptualized as a self-handicapping strategy–an attempt to externalize outcomes threatening one's self-image. In a laboratory study, male college students were led to believe they had succeeded at a task that was either relevant or irrelevant to their self-images. In conjunction with this, subjects were led to believe that the success they had experienced was either contingent upon or not contingent upon their effort. Consistent with a self-handicapping strategy, extremely difficult performance goals were selected on a subsequent task when success at a previous task was not contingent upon workers' e]ffort, but only in the personally relevant condition-i.e., when task performance had attributional implications for workers' s]elf-images. Personally irrelevant tasks led to a realistic downward revision of performance aspirations in response to noncontingent success.

Male and female undergraduates read aloud statements about women which were either attitudinally consistent, discrepant, or neutral relative to their attitudes toward women. Following this, they were given the opportunity to choose to wait in front of a mirror or a nonreflecting wall. Subjects engaging in attitudinally discrepant behavior avoided self-focusing stimuli; those engaging in attitudinally consistent behavior sought contact with self-focusing stimuli. Intermediate tendencies to seek or avoid self-focused stimuli were demonstrated by subjects reading attitudinally neutral material. The theory of objective self-awareness was extended by demonstrating that self-focusing stimuli are not just avoided in response to negative discrepancies, but are sought out in response to attitude-behavior consistencies.