Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management
Publication Year: 1998
Why are some acts but not others perceived to be fair? How do people who experience unfairness respond toward others held accountable for the unfairness? This book reviews the theoretical organizational justice literature and explores how the research on justice applies to various topics in organizational behaviour including personnel selection systems, performance appraisal and the role of fairness in resolving workplace conflict. Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management considers justice in organizations within a new framework - Fairness Theory - which integrates previous work in this area by focusing on accountability for events with negative impact on material and psychological well-being.
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Equity and Distributive Justice as Outcome Fairness
- Chapter 2: Process as Procedural and Interactional Justice
- Chapter 3: Two Theoretical Syntheses
- Chapter 4: Organizational Justice and Staffing Decisions: On the Horns of a Justice Dilemma?
- Chapter 5: Organizational Justice and Performance Evaluation: Test and Trial Metaphors
- Chapter 6: Organizational Justice and Conflict Management: Social Accounts, Third Parties, and Grievance Systems
- Chapter 7: Toward a General Theory of Fairness
- Chapter 8: Future Directions
Foundations for Organizational Science: A Sage Publications Series[Page ii]
David Whetten, Brigham Young University
Peter J. Frost, University of British Columbia
Anne S. Huff, University of Colorado and Cranfield University (UK)
Benjamin Schneider, University of Maryland
M. Susan Taylor, University of Maryland
Andrew Van de Ven, University of Minnesota
The FOUNDATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCE series supports the development of students, faculty, and prospective organizational science professionals through the publication of texts authored by leading organizational scientists. Each volume provides a highly personal, hands-on introduction to a core topic or theory and challenges the reader to explore promising avenues for future theory development and empirical application.
Books in This Series
PUBLISHING IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCES, 2nd Edition
Edited by L. L. Cummings and Peter J. Frost
SENSEMAKING IN ORGANIZATIONS
Karl E. Weick
INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS
W. Richard Scott
RHYTHMS OF ACADEMIC LIFE
Peter J. Frost and M. Susan Taylor
RESEARCHERS HOOKED ON TEACHING:
Noted Scholars Discuss the Synergies of Teaching and Research
Rae André and Peter J. Frost
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DECISION MAKING: People in Organizations
Lee Roy Beach
ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Robert Folger and Russell Cropanzano
RECRUITING EMPLOYEES: Individual and Organizational Perspectives
Alison E. Barber
Copyright © 1998 by Sage Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
SAGE Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications Ltd.
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Greater Kailash I
New Delhi 110 048 India
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Organizational justice and human resource management/ by Robert Folger and Russell Cropanzano.
p. cm.—(Foundations for organizational science)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8039-5686-X (cloth: acid-free paper)
ISBN 0-8039-5687-8 (pbk.: acid-free paper)
1. Organizational behavior—Moral and ethical aspects. 2. Personnel Management—Moral and ethical aspects. 3. Distributive justice.
I. Cropanzano, Russell. II. Title. III. Series.
HD58.7 .F65 1998
98 99 00 01 02 03 04 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Acquiring Editor: Marquita Flemming
Editorial Assistant: Frances Borghi
Production Editor: Astrid Virding/Wendy Westgate
Production Assistant: Karen Wiley
Typesetter: Marion Warren
Print Buyer: Anna Chin
To my parents on their 50th wedding anniversary.—R.F.
To my wife, Carol—R.C.[Page vi]
Introduction to the Series[Page ix]
The title of this series, Foundations for Organizational Science (FOS), denotes a distinctive focus. FOS books are educational aids for mastering the core theories, essential tools, and emerging perspectives that constitute the field of organizational science (broadly defined to include organizational behavior, organizational theory, human resource management, and business strategy). The primary objective of this series is to support ongoing professional development among established scholars.
The series was born out of many long conversations among several colleagues, including Peter Frost, Anne Huff, Rick Mowday, Ben Schneider, Susan Taylor, and Andy Van de Ven, over a number of years. From those discussions, we concluded that there has been a major gap in our professional literature, as characterized by the following comment: “If I, or one of my students, want to learn about population ecology, diversification strategies, group dynamics, or personnel selection, we are pretty much limited to academic journal articles or books that are written either for content experts or practitioners. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have access to the teaching notes from a course taught by a master teacher of this topic?”
The plans for compiling a set of learning materials focusing on professional development emerged from our extended discussions of common experiences and observations, including the following:[Page x]
- While serving as editors of journals, program organizers for professional association meetings, and mentors for new faculty members, we have observed wide variance in theoretical knowledge and tool proficiency in our field. To the extent that this outcome reflects available learning opportunities, we hope that this series will help “level the playing field.”
- We have all “taught” in doctoral and junior faculty consortia prior to our professional meetings and have been struck by how often the participants comment, “I wish that the rest of the meetings [paper sessions and symposia] were as informative.” Such observations got us thinking—Are our doctoral courses more like paper sessions or doctoral consortia? What type of course would constitute a learning experience analogous to attending a doctoral consortium? What materials would we need to teach such a course? We hope that the books in this series have the “touch and feel” of a doctoral consortium workshop.
- We all have had some exposure to the emerging “virtual university” in which faculty and students in major doctoral programs share their distinctive competencies, either through periodic jointly sponsored seminars or through distance learning technology, and we would like to see these opportunities diffused more broadly. We hope that reading our authors' accounts will be the next best thing to observing them in action.
- We see some of the master scholars in our field reaching the later stages of their careers, and we would like to “bottle” their experience and insight for future generations. Therefore, this series is an attempt to disseminate “best practices” across space and time.
To address these objectives, we ask authors in this series to pass along their “craft knowledge” to students and faculty beyond the boundaries of their local institutions by writing from the perspective of seasoned teachers and mentors. Specifically, we encourage them to invite readers into their classrooms (to gain an understanding of the past, present, and future of scholarship in particular areas from the perspective of their firsthand experience), as well as into their offices and hallway conversations (to gain insights into the subtleties and nuances of exemplary professional practice).
By explicitly focusing on an introductory doctoral seminar setting, we encourage our authors to address the interests and needs of nonexpert students and colleagues who are looking for answers to questions such as the following: Why is this topic important? How did it originate and how has it evolved? How is it different from related topics? What do we actually know about this topic? How does one effectively communicate this information to students and practitioners? What are the methodological pitfalls and conceptual dead ends that should be avoided? What are the most/least promising opportunities for theory development and empirical study in this area? What questions/situations/phenomena are not well suited for this theory or tool?
[Page xi]What is the most interesting work in progress? What are the most critical gaps in our current understanding that need to be addressed during the next 5 years?
We are pleased to share our dream with you, and we encourage your suggestions for how these books can better satisfy your learning needs—as a newcomer to the field preparing for prelims or developing a research proposal, or as an established scholar seeking to broaden your knowledge and proficiency.Series Editor
Preface[Page xii]The What and the Why of Social Justice
This is a book about organizational justice. In particular, it is about the conditions of employment that lead individuals to believe they are being treated fairly or unfairly. In the course of writing this book, we have reviewed a vast body of literature indicating that justice is an important motivator for working people. We will show that when individuals perceive a lack of fairness, their morale declines, they become more likely to leave their jobs, and they may even retaliate against the organization. Fair treatment, by contrast, breeds commitment, intentions to remain on the job, and helpful citizenship behaviors that go beyond the call of formal job duties. In short, justice holds people together, whereas injustice can pull them apart.
As a prelude to our book, this preface is organized around two broad questions: What is justice and why does it matter? We take up this issue in three sections. First, we define organizational fairness in a general way, distinguishing it from related philosophical ideas. Second, we examine why justice matters in human societies. We argue that fairness concerns arise out of a predicament faced by many social animals: How can one pursue individual goals in the context of a social group? Fairness provides a means for resolving this dilemma. Finally, we conclude by again asking the question: What is [Page xiii]justice? This time our answer will be more specific, focusing on the different varieties of fairness that influence work life.What is Justice? Social Science and Philosophical Definitions
For a scientific investigation to go forward, it must define—in even a cursory sense—the object of inquiry. Social justice researchers have succeeded in that task, but their definition has had trouble competing with more popular conceptions. The term justice has a colloquial meaning that is very close to its philosophical origins. It is social scientists who employ peculiar terminology. In this section, we try to illustrate how researchers have approached these definitional matters. We discuss and define the meaning of social justice, both as understood by philosophers and as understood by social scientists.
Let us start by considering where scholars concur. Social scientists and philosophers would agree that a “just” act is one that is perceived to be good or righteous. Similarly, both groups of scholars would also suggest that an act can be good without being fair (or unfair). For example, Aristotle believed that a good person should live a life of temperance or moderation. By that view, a drunkard or hedonist is not a righteous person. People who consider excessive drinking to be bad, however, probably would not say that it is “unfair.” Fairness and unfairness seem irrelevant concepts for imprudent behavior harming no one else.
On the other hand, suppose the drunkard begins to inconvenience his or her coworkers. Harm to coworkers by a drunkard, when the coworkers did nothing to deserve being harmed, seems to qualify as an injustice. Why? The answer is that judgments about justice usually involve a social context and unwarranted actions by one party that harm or threaten other parties (such as by imposing consequences that they consider to be undeserved). If a person drinks and harms no one else, then although this behavior might be wrong-headed, stupid, and even sinful, it is neither fair nor unfair. On the other hand, once that individual begins to affect the lives of others, then fairness can become an issue. We can describe the selfish alcoholic—willing to ignore the prospects of imposing undue harm on others—as unfair.
In organizations, justice is about the rules and social norms governing how outcomes (e.g., rewards and punishments) should be distributed, the procedures used for making such distribution decisions (as well as other types of decisions), and how people are treated interpersonally (Bies & Tripp, 1995a, 1995b). When no outcomes are being assigned and when there are no processes for assigning them (i.e., no one is interacting), then justice becomes [Page xiv]moot. When people interact, however, they begin to treat one another in certain ways. They might, for example, derogate each other (i.e., take away someone's social status or self-respect) or they might treat each other respectfully (i.e., assign each other positive status). Some transactions and other types of interactions are judged to be virtuous or fair, whereas others are not “proper” and are unfair. When we say that someone has treated us “unfairly,” we mean that he or she has violated some ethical standard(s) regarding moral behavior. That person has not treated us as we believe people “should” be treated.
From this introduction, it is probably clear where philosophers and social scientists diverge. Ethical philosophers are interested in providing prescriptive or normative definitions of justice. Loosely, we can say that they give us guidance as to how we should behave (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1994; Waterman, 1988). Philosophers attempt to develop standards and “first principles” that allow us to make ethical decisions. Of course, this enterprise defines justice with respect to some philosophical system. The same act can be seen as more or less fair, depending on which philosophical system one utilizes. For this reason, people vary in what they see as ethical behavior (Hosmer, 1995; Jones, 1991). For example, Rokeach (1973) argued that individuals who value both equality and freedom tend to view wide gaps between the rich and the poor as unfair. They do not like it when a relatively small number of people control a disproportionate amount of the available wealth. These individuals often prefer democratic socialism as a means of rectifying what they see as an “unfair” income distribution. On the other hand, those who have strong values for freedom but less for equality are more oriented toward free-market capitalism. Wide variability in incomes is not unfair in this philosophical world view because equality is a secondary value. For people with this orientation, a lack of justice can result from government restrictions and “confiscation” of their wealth through taxes. Justice, in this philosophical sense, refers to the extent to which a given action, outcome, or circumstance is in alignment with a certain ethical paradigm (Hosmer, 1995).
If this book were about philosophical views on justice, the content would focus on applied ethical principles, perhaps even a touch of theology. It would probably not be empirical, although it might be informed by data (cf. Donaldson & Dunfee, 1994; Randall & Gibson, 1990). However, we have offered the reader this definition of justice only by way of contrast. For social and organizational scientists, justice is defined phenomenologically. That is, an act is “just” because someone thinks it is just and responds accordingly. This definition is subjective and socially constructed. As one might imagine, two or more people can disagree. Justice, then, is a perceptual cognition. People perceive a certain event. They then make judgments regarding that event and store them in memory. Justice is a means by which individuals make sense out [Page xv]of their social worlds. We can see from this analysis that justice perceptions share much in common with stereotypes, schemas, heuristics, and attitudes.
The distinction between the philosophical and the social scientific view of justice is important for understanding terminology. Suppose there was a moderately sized family business. On retirement, the owner of the firm gave his inexperienced son the job of president, thereby passing over employees with greater seniority, more experience, and better performance records. Was this promotion unfair? A philosopher might say yes or no, depending on his or her ethical inclinations. For example, the individual who strongly believed in the doctrine of employment at will would see the company as the personal property of the owner. Although the owner's decision may have been foolhardy, it is not unfair. The owner can do whatever he wants with his property. One might debate this conclusion (most philosophers probably would), but the resolution ultimately depends on one's values. Depending on one's point of view, the act could be seen as fair.
A social scientist has a narrower question. In this case, the act is unfair when observers judge it to be unfair. The social scientist assesses perceived fairness by collecting data. If most people perceive the act as an injustice, then it is an injustice—as far as the social scientist is concerned. Another investigator disagreeing with that appraisal would probably refer to the quality of the data rather than to some abstract ethical system.
In this book, of course, we will be using the social scientific definition. Justice is about how rewards and punishments are distributed by and within social collectives, and it is also about how people govern relations with one another. It is about who gets what and whether the participants in (and observers of) these transactions believe them to be righteous. It is also about the reactions of participants and observers to the righteousness of other kinds of human interactions—those that seem to lie beyond material transaction and distribution. Once we understand what justice is, we can easily comprehend why it is so central to human affairs: People care deeply about how they are treated by others.
It should come as no surprise to learn that scholars of all stripes and eras have been concerned with social justice. Many of the earliest human writings, such as Hammurabi's Code and the Bible, showed an interest in social justice. These writings discussed how people should treat other people and how resources should be allocated. The myths and folklore of every culture also contain at least some tales designed to teach moral and ethical lessons. Likewise, in the Western philosophical tradition, philosophers since Plato and Aristotle have wrestled with issues of fairness. Indeed, it seems natural for human beings to worry about justice. Children show a concern for fairness at a very early age (see Wilson, 1993, for a review). Research reviewed by de Waal (1996) indicates that nonhuman primates show a rudimentary sense of justice; [Page xvi]they practice reciprocity and punish those members who have the temerity to harm the group, displaying what ethologists call moralistic aggression. Despite differing norms, all human groups show at least some concern with fairness (Wilson, 1993), if this is understood to mean playing by the rules and abiding by ethical standards.
Although anyone can easily imagine unfair situations, it is difficult to envision a social world in which justice would not even be a consideration. We know unfairness because it violates our sense of what is fair. Anything else would require us to imagine a world in which no one cared about who got what, or in which there were no rules governing the allocation of benefits and punishments. This is not easy for us to contemplate. Indeed, when we meet people with absolutely no sense of justice we label them psychopaths or narcissists and assume that they are mentally ill (Wilson, 1993). Some might even suggest that a person who does not consider fairness should be separated from the rest of us by means of incarceration.Why Justice?
All of these observations point to the pervasiveness of justice considerations in human endeavors. However, none of them specifies why this is so. We are much like the proverbial fish who, having never been anywhere else, fails to see that it is in the water. Because we often think in fairness terms, we have difficulty imagining how it could be otherwise. We can understand why justice is important by remembering that fairness concerns itself with what things get allocated and how these allocations take place. Thus, to say that justice matters is more or less synonymous with maintaining that people care about how they are treated by others. The roots of justice can be found in our inclination to affiliate with other people.
With these observations in mind, we are now ready to answer the “why” question. This preface will approach the matter broadly, dividing our argument into four sections. First, we discuss why people live and work in groups. We emphasize that social collectives, in the broadest sense of that term, provide Homo sapiens with a variety of advantages. Second, given the advantages of group living, it seems likely that gregariousness had clear survival value. On the basis of this, we will argue that sociability is built into the human psyche. Nature has endowed humans with a set of inclinations or needs that other people are helpful in fulfilling. Third, we will examine human needs in more detail. Generally speaking, human needs can be organized into two broad categories. One set of needs is economic or quasi-economic. For example, people require shelter, food, and so on. Another set is socioemotional. [Page xvii]For example, people tend to be desirous of status and a sense of dignity. Such needs draw us to others. Fourth, we discuss how individual inclinations tug people into social groups as a means of fulfilling their needs. Consequently, most of us seek out others, but we tend to do so to fulfill our own objectives. As such, outcomes in the group need to be negotiated. Justice provides the vehicle by which these negotiations can occur.1Why People Need other People
The bottom line in species survival is the reproduction of viable offspring (Wright, 1994). Of course, to reach this goal one needs to stay alive long enough to mate. This requires obtaining adequate food and escaping predators, among other things. Human beings are especially vulnerable as infants. As Gould (1981) observed, humans are born relatively immature, as not much more than embryos. In addition, the large size of infant heads makes deliveries difficult and dangerous for mothers (Diamond, 1992). Fortunately, humans and related species can pool their otherwise modest physical resources by forming social groups. For most of evolutionary history, these groups consisted of small clans composed mostly of blood relations who made their living as hunter-gatherers (Diamond, 1992). Once groups are organized, all sorts of advantages begin to accrue. People can gather themselves into hunting parties (or, perhaps more accurately, scavenging parties; see Lewin, 1988), fight as a team, and share the all-important chores of child rearing and education.
Given these considerations, we might suspect that people would work together on the basis of nothing more than straightforward, rational considerations. This idea is no doubt largely true, as reason allows people to select among a plethora of alternative groups. For instance, we pick and choose among potential employers by taking our self-interest into account. A job applicant might accept the position that offers the highest pay (although he or she weighs other things as well; see Chapter 4 in this volume). In addition, we can also choose to modify the collectives of which we are already a part. For example, the size of a corporation might be expanded in order to boost manufacturing efficiency (Fukuyama, 1995).
Despite the strength of these arguments, they tell only part of the story. Purely rational considerations require a reasonably good intellect. Neither the cheetah nor the gray wolf sits down and reasons through the best hunting strategy—much less conducts an empirical study. Rather, the cheetah evolved as a solitary stalker and the gray wolf as a pack hunter. Within each species, style shows little variance. By extension, rational considerations cannot account for a key aspect of human life: People (or the ancestors of people) were affiliating in collectives before modern brain capacities had evolved (de Waal, 1996; Lewin, 1988). Undoubtedly, reason influences the mechanisms by which [Page xviii]we select our comrades and friends. It also provides us with innovations and ideas for how these groups can be changed and adjusted. Our orientation toward others in general, however, predates sophisticated cognitive and linguistic capabilities. It is a more basic inclination, in the narrow sense that our thinking capacities developed within the context of our social natures, not the reverse.
We need to be extremely careful not to overstate this point. We are not arguing for biological determinism. A large brain provides humans with tremendous flexibility for engaging in innovative planning. Likewise, we do not intend to understate the role of culture. Obviously these influences are very important. It is also clear, however, that the vast majority of people, from all walks of life, eschew a solitary existence. Most of us seek some contact with others, although we vary widely in whom we choose and how much contact we prefer. With these caveats in mind, let us now take up the matter in greater detail.How Nature Built Humans to Work with others: Evolution within a Social Setting
Most anthropologists agree that humans share at least two attributes: big brains and a tendency to affiliate in social groups. These characteristics are, of course, related. Big brains allow us to keep track of who is in our in-groups and who else, conversely, is not (Bigelow, 1972). Moreover, they help us to remember the dominance hierarchies under which we all live, and they guide us in crafting the necessary political tactics to compete within that hierarchy (de Waal, 1996; Lewin, 1988). Using our intelligence, humans can also distinguish those among us who are honest and worthy of our trust from those who are selfish “free-riders” (Cosmides, 1989).
There is a subtle theme running through all of these examples. Human beings were probably organizing themselves into social groups when they were still Australopithecus afarensis. In other words, we were living in clans before we were humans or even hominids (Lewin, 1988; Wilson, 1978; Wright, 1994). Additionally, our big brains—the hallmark of humanity—did not condition us to this gregarious lifestyle; rather, the gregarious lifestyle helped lead to the evolution of the brain. Keep in mind that evolution is a response to environmental pressures. For our ancestors, that environment was largely a social environment. To state the matter loosely: We became human because we were social animals. Our evolutionary history has built us so that we need things that are best fulfilled by others.[Page xix]Two Sets of Needs
Loosely speaking, people can be said to have two broad sets of needs. On the one hand, of course, are the basic needs that are requisite for individual survival: These are demands for concrete material things, such as food and shelter. This would also include legal tender (i.e., money) that can be readily exchanged for goods. These material needs can be said to have “a consummatory facet … [and] can be enjoyed immediately” (Lind, 1995, p. 96). Personality theorists (see Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Cropanzano, James, & Citera, 1993; Murray, 1938) have given a great deal of attention to concrete, material cravings. In fact, this family of needs has been studied under a variety of names, such as physiological needs (Maslow, 1954) and existence needs (Alderfer, 1969, 1972). In the present discussion, we are not attempting to invoke a specific need theory. The only issue here is that a variety of human desires can be subsumed under this general family. To separate our thinking from the personality literature, we shall refer to these simply as economic needs (in keeping with Cropanzano & Schminke, in press).
The second class of needs is more directly tied to our social natures. To a greater or lesser extent, people desire to be valued and esteemed by others. As Lind (1995) remarked succinctly, some things are desired “because they have greater implications for feelings of inclusion and social identity” (p. 96). Among other things, this would include a sense of dignity and the respect of one's peers (cf. “belongingness needs,” Maslow, 1954; “relatedness needs,” Alderfer, 1969, 1972). In this discussion, we shall refer to them simply as socioemotional needs (Cropanzano & Schminke, in press). These socioemotional needs drive home the reason that humans feel compelled to affiliate with other people, because there is no way for us as humans to fulfill these desires completely by ourselves. To some extent, people must look to other humans for status and esteem.The Predicament: Trying to Meet Personal Needs in the Context of a Social Group
Group cooperation often enhances the ability to provide for economic needs. For this reason, a general tendency to seek out others has evolved (Simon, 1983). In addition, this tendency manifests itself as a set of socioemotional needs that go unfulfilled unless peers act in ways that meet those needs. For such reasons, people choose to affiliate with others. People hope that ultimately their comrades will help them attain their goals.2 Unfortunately, those comrades have many of the same objectives for themselves. They seek collaboration in order to achieve their goals, which might be incompatible with the goals of those seeking their help.
[Page xx]The situation can be understood thus: If our comrades are not helpful to us, then we are more likely to seek a new set of associates. Likewise, if we are not helpful to our comrades, then they will be motivated to abandon us. They depend on us to give them respect. For this reason, each person cannot be overly demanding of others. Everyone should show at least a modicum of concern for the needs of his or her peers. Ultimately, successful collectives are based on a grand compromise—everyone agrees to keep his/her personal self-interest partially in check so that something is left for other members of the group.
Justice norms develop as guidelines for fair interaction and rules by which exchanges are made. In the act of framing norms, social groups decide what is “right” and “ethical.” These norms help us to regulate both our own behavior and the behavior of others. For example, we know that if we take too big a portion of the profits for ourselves, we risk the disdain of our coworkers. Justice makes us aware of those boundaries. Furthermore, justice affords us a sense of predictability. When we have clear rules, we know how decisions are made and what outcomes we are apt to receive in the long run. In a fair system, for example, we are likely to be less upset when a particular transaction does not go our way. This affords us more confidence that outcomes will be distributed adequately in the future.
Of course, it is difficult to monitor some transactions, and it is not always easy to know whether you are being treated fairly. Added to these concerns is another important fact: Members of a group have an incentive to cheat. This is because “free riding,” if undetected, allows the cheater to maximize his or her benefits without endangering his or her future. Justice norms offer a partial solution. Sound fairness principles can provide clearer standards by which a peer's behavior can be evaluated. This could make it easier to detect free riders.
In sum, other people are the avenue by which individuals fulfill many of their needs. Justice provides us with a system for getting our needs met in an orderly and fair way. Once group members agree on the rules of fairness (no mean task), then everyone need only abide by them. Doing so means that you can address the needs of others while others are addressing your personal interests. We shall demonstrate this matter more explicitly in our next section.What is Justice (Revisited)? Distributive and Procedural Justice in Work Organizations
At this point, it might be useful to consider the social scientific approach in more detail. As we have seen, philosophical theories of social justice are [Page xxi]intimately concerned with how people relate to one another in exchange situations. Any outcome assigned by a group or individual, be it money or status, can be judged with respect to fairness. Because these are important reasons that people are driven to affiliate, justice is critical for understanding interpersonal relationships and group processes (Greenberg, 1988a). We can say, therefore, that justice involves at least two or more actors and some category of resource. We can define these terms broadly. The actors need not be individual people but can be social units, such as organizations or even nations. Likewise, the resources can be economic or socioemotional. The interactions that take place are governed by some rules or procedures, formal and explicit as well as informal and tacit. For example, an organization selects among job applicants on the basis of interviews. In this case, the two actors are the organization and the individual who has applied for a new job. The outcome is whether or not the job was obtained. The process refers, in part, to the manner in which the interviews were conducted.
This example underscores an important aspect of contemporary justice theories. The person who is seeking a job actually has to make multiple fairness judgments. He or she can evaluate the fairness of the outcome (Was it right that I did not get this new job?) and the fairness of the process (Were interviews conducted in the right manner to render a decision?). The first judgment refers to distributive justice, whereas the second refers to procedural justice. In addition to procedural and distributive justice, there is a third category or form of fairness—interactional justice—that refers to interpersonal treatment received at the hands of others (Bies, 1987b; Bies & Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1988c). It is often identified with, or seen as closely related to, procedural justice (e.g., Greenberg, 1990c; Tyler & Bies, 1990).Distributive Justice
Distributive justice is the perceived fairness of the outcomes or allocations that an individual receives. It can cause workers to lower their job performance (Greenberg, 1988b; Pfeffer & Langton, 1993), engage in withdrawal behaviors (Pfeffer & Davis-Blake, 1992; Schwarzwald, Koslowsky, & Shalit, 1992), cooperate less with their coworkers (Pfeffer & Langton, 1993), reduce work quality (Cowherd & Levine, 1992), steal (Greenberg, 1990c), and experience stress (Zohar, 1995). To state the matter starkly, distributive injustice causes about every pernicious criterion ever chronicled by organizational scientists!
When people render a distributive justice judgment, they are evaluating whether an outcome is appropriate, moral, or ethical. Making this decision is trickier than it may appear, for there is seldom an objective standard of righteousness. To decide if something is fair, people must generate a benchmark [Page xxii]or frame of reference. We call this standard a referent. Although a variety of referents are possible (Kulik & Ambrose, 1992), social comparisons have received the most attention. For example, if a person needs to decide whether or not his or her pay is fair, he or she can simply find someone in a similar job and compare their compensation levels. If the two salaries are equal, then there is no inequity. If one discovers that one is being “overpaid” (again, this is relative to a given referent), one is likely to experience guilt (Greenberg, 1982; 1988a); however, it should be noted that people tend to get less upset when an inequity is in their favor (Hegtvedt, 1993). On the other hand, being “underpaid” is more troublesome. Individuals are likely to react negatively when their rewards are substantially less than those of a comparison person.
Distributive fairness is judged by referent standards. What a person receives cannot determine outcome justice without considering the outcome relative to some standard of comparison. Sweeney, McFarlin, and Inderrieden (1990), for example, predicted pay satisfaction from actual salaries and self-reported referents. Salary was an important predictor, but including the referent accounted for additional variance in pay satisfaction. Thus, two people with the same outcomes may perceive different levels of justice if they are not using the same referent. In a related vein, Stepina and Perrewe (1991) obtained longitudinal data from discontented individuals who improved their satisfaction by changing their referent standards (e.g., enhanced sense of accomplishment from comparing with the less accomplished).Procedural Justice?
When social scientists refer to procedural justice, they are still indicating an evaluation or subjective judgment. However, in this case it is an appraisal of the process by which an allocation decision is (or was) made. As an area of inquiry, procedural justice emerged on the scene more recently than distributive justice, although it has now been studied for some time. Folger and Greenberg (1985) were the first major researchers to apply procedural fairness to work settings. Since that time, there has been a veritable flood of procedural justice research. This work has had important practical implications. Evidence now shows that when people believe that decision-making processes are unjust, they show less commitment to their employers, more theft, higher turnover intentions, lower performance, and fewer helpful citizenship behaviors (for recent reviews, see Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Tyler & Smith, in press). People care about how they are treated, and these procedural justice perceptions do much to shape their relationships with their employers. For this reason it is important for us to articulate more clearly the attributes of fair decision procedures.[Page xxiii]The “Voice” Tradition of Thibaut and Walker (1975)
The study of procedural justice grew out of Thibaut and Walker's (1975) work in the mid-1970s. Thibaut and Walker were interested in understanding disputants' reactions to various forms of legal proceedings. They divided dispute resolution into two stages: a process stage in which evidence was presented and a decision stage in which a third party rendered a verdict. Thibaut and Walker were interested in a circumstance involving three individuals: two disputants and a third-party decision maker such as a judge. Generally speaking, the disputants were willing to forgo decision control if they were allowed to retain process control. In other words, participants saw the resolution process as fair and were contented with the results if they were given a sufficient chance to present their cases. This was termed voice (Folger, 1977). We should not understate the importance of voice in the study of procedural justice. Thibaut and Walker (1975) launched an area of inquiry that continues to the present day (e.g., Shapiro & Brett, 1993).Leventhal's Six Attributes of Fair Procedures
In their early work, Thibaut and Walker (1975) virtually equated voice with procedural fairness. However, in later research, Leventhal (1976, 1980) expanded the list of process characteristics that could increase perceptions of procedural justice. Leventhal's list of six attributes is now famous. To be considered fair, a procedure should be (a) consistent, (b) bias free, (c) accurate, (d) correctable in case of an error, (e) representative of all concerned (a feature related to voice), and (f) based on prevailing ethical standards. For the most part, Leventhal's early thinking has proven to have been astute. Research generally attests to the importance of these six attributes (Lind & Tyler, 1988). One of the prevailing trends in recent organizational justice research is found in the application of Leventhal's six characteristics to various practical situations. For example, Alder and Ambrose (1996) used Leventhal's list to devise standards for building fair computer-based performance monitors. Likewise, Gilliland (1993) adapted the Leventhal attributes to workplace selection. In doing so, he provided guidelines for fairer assessment systems. Although this new work adjusts Leventhal's (1976, 1980) original model to fit the needs at hand, his basic six criteria seem to have withstood the test of time.Interactional Justice
Interactional justice refers to the quality of the interpersonal treatment received by an individual. Certain kinds of treatment are likely to be perceived as fair, whereas others are seen as unfair. Interactional justice was introduced [Page xxiv]as an independent, third type of fairness contrasted with both procedural and distributive justice (Bies, 1987b; Bies & Moag, 1986). Nowadays, interactional justice is frequently treated as an aspect or component of procedural justice (e.g., Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Greenberg, 1990c; Tyler & Bies, 1990), although some have called this scheme into question (Greenberg, 1993a). It is a straightforward matter to conceptualize interactional justice as an aspect of process if decision-making processes are conceptualized to include processes of implementation and communication (e.g., how the decision is explained). Also, at least some research has found that ratings of procedural and interactional fairness are highly correlated (e.g., Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). In such a classification scheme, procedural justice has two aspects: a structural or formal component (represented by Leventhal's six attributes and related work) and a social component (represented by interactional justice).
Whether considered independently or as part of the procedures, interactional justice itself can be thought of as having at least two components (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). The first subpart is interpersonal sensitivity. Fair treatment should be polite and respectful. The recipients of insensitive treatment are prone to poor attitudes, conflict, and low performance (e.g., Baron, 1993; Bies & Moag, 1986). The second subpart of interactional justice includes explanations or social accounts. Explanations tell the recipient why something unfortunate or untoward occurred. They provide a rationale. Individuals are much more tolerant of an unfavorable outcome when an adequate justification is provided (Bies & Shapiro, 1988; Shapiro, 1991; Shapiro, Buttner, & Barry, 1994).Plan of This Book
We have covered a lot of ground without yet leaving the preface! Let us, therefore, summarize the major points. In colloquial language, justice is usually thought of from a more or less philosophical perspective—a fair act is one that seems righteous. Often, justice refers to situations in which some transaction is involved, such as an exchange of goods or services. Although the social science definition of justice shares much in common with its philosophical counterpart, there is one major difference. Within the social sciences, an act is just because some observer or observers judge it to be so. In this case, fairness is subjectively defined. The social science literature concerns itself with why some acts, but not others, are perceived to be fair. It also [Page xxv]examines the results of making such an evaluation. This definition constitutes the subject matter for this book.
Considerable interest has been paid to justice by both philosophers and social scientists. This, along with some of the research reviewed previously, indicates that fairness is of great concern to people. In this preface, we have suggested that people's interest in justice results from a fundamental natural dilemma: We have individual needs that can best be satisfied through interaction with others. These needs include relatively concrete economic needs, such as money, and relatively abstract socioemotional needs, such as a concern with personal dignity. The dictates of fairness provide people with standards for assessing whether these needs are met within the context of social settings, which often can become complex.
Finally, we introduced the idea of distributive and procedural justice in work settings. We noted that distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the outcomes assigned during a transaction. Procedural justice, on the other hand, refers to the process or means by which outcome assignments are made. We indicated that the distribution-process dichotomy is fairly central to the modern understanding of social justice, although some additional distinctions involving interactional justice suggest that it can also make sense to distinguish between (a) structural features designed for procedures (e.g., formal mechanisms for meeting Leventhal's procedural criteria, such as an institutionalized appeals board) and (b) behavioral features of implementation revealed in the conduct of people who administer procedures (interactional justice elements such as efforts to provide sincere, adequate explanations and to treat those affected by decisions with the dignity and respect owed human beings).
The rest of the book will build on the ideas outlined in this preface. It may be helpful to think of this volume as two books in one. The first “book” is a theoretical review of the justice literature. This can be found in the three opening chapters. Chapter 1 examines distributive justice, and Chapter 2 examines procedural justice. Chapter 3 not only introduces interactional justice but also tries to provide a preliminary conceptual synthesis for interpreting how the various forms of justice relate to one another. The second “book” can be found in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. In those three chapters, we apply research on justice to various topics in organizational behavior. Chapter 4 reviews the literature concerning social justice and selection systems. Chapter 5 turns its attention to performance appraisal. Finally, Chapter 6 considers the role of (u n) fairness as both a contributor to and a means of resolving workplace conflict. We close the book, in Chapter 7 and Chapter 8, with a new theory of fairness and a discussion of emerging directions for future theory and research.[Page xxvi]Notes
1. In this section, we do not intend to imply that human biology does or should determine the content of human ethical systems. Although such a position was suggested by Wilson (1978), it has the disadvantage of confusing what is with what should be. That is, it conflates the descriptive with the prescriptive (Singer, 1981). This has been termed the “naturalistic fallacy” (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1994; Wright, 1994). Our point is far more modest. We maintain only that our biological nature provides us with a broad set of potentialities and problems. Some of these problems are addressed by human ethical systems.
2. Much has been written about the human penchant for selfishness. Is this all there really is to us? The answer is difficult because we are actually asking at least two questions at one time. Whether we answer this question yes or no depends on how we define our terms. When one thinks of selfishness, one usually means a willful decision to pursue one's own good at the expense of others. We shall term this moral self-interest. On the other hand, there is also genetic self-interest. For instance, certain behaviors make it more or less likely that, on average, one's genes will be passed on to the next generation. The two are not the same. Consider the case of a father who risks his life to save a child. (Such things are not rare.) This father is manifesting a trait we might call familial love. In our ancestral environment, familial love was no doubt adaptive, in that it allowed us to pass on our genes. In this narrow sense, we might say the father is motivated by self-interest or even (were we to push the matter) a sort of “genetic selfishness.” However, this does not make the father any less altruistic, for there is no willful decision to pursue his own ends to the neglect of another person. From the perspective of our species, the act might be selfish, but from the perspective of the father and child it is an act of pristine altruism.
References[Page 236]1983). Organizational structure and innovation. Journal of Business, 40, 497–510., & (1987). Attitudes of intercollegiate football players toward drug testing. Athletic Training, 22, 199–201., , & (1982). Affective and semantic components in political person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619–630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2069, , , & (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1996). Designing, implementing, and utilizing computerized performance monitors for procedural and distributive justice. Unpublished manuscript., & (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2869%2990004-X(1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press.(1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01048015, & (1993). Relational justice and personality testing: Sometimes nice guys do finish last. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado, Boulder., & (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–34). New York: Academic Press.(1991, June). Frontier issues in personnel psychology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Personnel Management Assessment Association, Chicago.([Page 237]1992). Fairness and ethical considerations in employee selection. In D. M.Saunders (Ed.), New approaches in employee selection (Vol. 1, pp. 1–19). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1982). The employment interview: A summary and review of recent research. Personnel Psychology, 35, 281–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1982.tb02197.x, & (1975). Differential dropout rates of minority and majority job candidates due to “time-lags” between selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 28, 175–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01378.x, , , & (1993). Fairness in selection: Current developments and perspectives. In N.Schmitt & W.Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection (pp. 171–202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., & (1961). A plea for excuses. In J. O.Urmson & G. J.Warnock (Eds.), Philosophical papers of]. L, Austin (pp. 123–152). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.(1992). The criterion problem: 1917–1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 836–874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.836, & (1990). Selective activation and disengagement in moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46, (1), 27–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00270.x(1985). Performance appraisers as test developers. Academy of Management Review, 10, 128–142., & (1995). Peer performance appraisals: The impact of rater competence, rater bias, and correctability. Group and Organizational Studies, 20, 39–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601195201004; & (1996). Automaticity in social psychology. In E. T.Higgins & A. W.Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 169–183). New York: Guilford.(1985). Reducing organizational conflict: The role of attributions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 434–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.434(1988a). Attributions and organizational conflict: The mediating role of apparent sincerity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 111–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978%2888%2990050-7(1988b). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 199–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.199(1990a). Attributions and organizational conflict. In S.Graham & V.Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict (pp. 185–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1990b). Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The relative efficacy of four potential interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 235–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.235(1991). Conflict in organizations. In K. R.Murphy & F. E.Saal (Eds.), Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice (pp. 197–216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1993). Criticism (informal negative feedback) as a source of perceived unfairness in organizations: Effects, mechanisms, and countermeasures. In R.Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 155–170). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1994). Human aggression (, & (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum.1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.113, & (1991). A reconsideration of testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American Psychologist, 46, 1012–1024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.10.1012, & (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1686, & (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1026. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x, & ([Page 238]1968). Performance appraisal based on self-review. Personnel Psychology, 21, 421–430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1968.tb02042.x, & (1995). Trying to look bad at work: Methods and motives for managing poor impressions in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 174–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256732, & (1993). Perceived intra-organizational mobility: Reliable versus exceptional performance as means to get ahead. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 579–594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140608, & (1980). Perceived mobility channels: Criteria for intraorganizational job mobility. Organizational Behavioral and Human Performance, 26, 250–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2880%2990058-6, , & (1981). Performance appraisal: Dilemmas and possibilities. Organizational Dynamics, Winter, 24–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616%2881%2990036-X(1978). A performance management system: Research, design, introduction, and evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 31, 505–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1978.tb00460.x, , , , & (1994). Issues, behavioral responses and consequences in interpersonal conflicts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 467–471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150510, & (1980). An empirical examination of relative deprivation theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 442–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2880%2990050-5, & (1974). The good old days-They were terrible!New York: Random House.(1982, August). The delivery of bad news in organizations: A social information perspective. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, New York.(1986, August). Identifying principles of interactional justice: The case of corporate recruiting. In the “Moving beyond equity theory: New directions in research on justice in organizations” symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.(1987a). Beyond “voice”: The influence of decision-maker justification and sincerity of procedural fairness judgments. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17, 3–17.(1987b). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L. L.Cummings & B. M.Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 289–319). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1989). Managing conflict before it happens: The role of accounts. In M. A.Rahim (Ed.), Managing conflict: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 83–91). New York: Praeger.(1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria for fairness. In B.Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI., & (1986, August). It's not my fault, but it's for the greater good: The influence of social accounts on perceptions of managerial legitimacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago., & (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01048016, & (1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 676–685. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256465, & (1988). Causal accounts and managing organizational conflicts: Is it enough to say its not my fault?Communications Research, 15, 381–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365088015004003, , & (1992). Explanation as legitimation: Excuse-making in organizations. In M. L.McLaughlin, M. J.Cody, & S. J.Read (Eds.), Explaining one's self to others: Reason-giving in a social context (pp. 183–198). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1995a). Beyond distrust: “Getting even” and the need for revenge. In R. M.Kramer & T.Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 246–260). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610, & ([Page 239]1995b). The use and abuse of power: Justice as social control. In R.Cropanzano & K. M.Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of work organizations (pp. 131–145). New York: Quorum Books., & (A passion for justice: The rationality and morality of revenge. In R.Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace (Volume II): From theory to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (in press).1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In J.Greenberg & R.Giacalone (Eds.), Anti-social behavior in organizations (pp. 18–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., , & (1993). The “litigation mentality” in organizations: A test of alternative psychological explanations. Organizational Science, 4, 352–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.3.352, & (1972). The evolution of cooperation, aggression, and self-control. In J. K.Cole & D. D.Jensen (Eds.), The Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 20, pp. 1–57). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.(1984). Solving costly organizational conflicts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., & (1996, April). Managerial accounts and fairness perceptions in third-party conflict resolution: Differentiating the effects of shifting responsibility and providing a justification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. San Diego, CA., , , & (1996). Sex-based promotion decisions and interactional fairness: Investigating the influence of managerial accounts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 22–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.22, & (1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life ((1st ed.). New York: Pantheon.1989). Effects of daily stress on negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808–818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1248, , , & (1978). Exploring the upper limits of reliability and validity in job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 561–565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.60.5.561(1985). The role of recruitment in staffing utility analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 354–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.2.354, & (1963). Conflict and defense: A general theory. New York: Harper.(1975). Evaluation of an assessment center in terms of acceptability. Canadian Personnel and Industrial Relations Journal, 22(3), 17–20., , , & (1980). Behavioral research on unions and management systems. In B. M.StawL. L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 177–213). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1983). Grievance mediation in the coal industry: A field experiment. Industrial and labor relations of a layoff and survivors' reactions to the layoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 389–407., & (1990). Designing systems for resolving disputes in organizations. American Psychologist, 45, 162–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.162, , & (1992). Perceived equity, motivation, and final-offer arbitration in major league baseball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 280–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.280, & (1990). When it is especially important to explain why: Factors affecting the relationship between managers' explanations of a layoff and survivors' reactions to the layoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 389–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2890%2990065-T, , , & (1994). Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity on victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 397–409. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256835, , , , , & ([Page 240]1996). Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice: The role of trust. In R. M.Kramer & T. R.Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research(pp. 390–413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610, & (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: The interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.189, & (1995). Decision frame, procedural justice, and survivors' reactions to job layoffs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 59–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1061, , & (1965). Social psychology. New York: Free Press(1975). Introductory psychology. Boston: Little, Brown., & (1993). Dominance alliance: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, (3) 542–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.542(1978). Characteristics of effective employee performance review and development interviews: Replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 31, 903–919. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1978.tb02130.x, , & (1969). Characteristics of effective employee performance review and development interviews. Personnel Psychology, 22, 291–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1969.tb00334.x, & (1962). Arbitrariness of frustration and its consequences for aggression in a social situation. Journal of Personality, 30, 528–540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb01687.x, & (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 3–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_2, , & (1982). How extensively are HRM practices being utilized by the practitioners?The Personnel Administrator, 27(5), 67–71., & (1988). Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: Development versus evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 13, 302–314., & (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D.Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 63–130). Chicago: Rand McNally., & (1992). Formality and informality in a laboratory grievance system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Association for Conflict Management, Minneapolis., , & (1979). Performance testing: A rose among thorns?Personnel Psychology, 32, 751–766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1979.tb02345.x, & (1997). A model of the net effect of job loss on violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1440–1447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1990, , & (1982). The performance appraisal interview: A review, implications, and suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 7, 219–227.(1980). An investigation of user acceptance of peer evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 33, 567–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1980.tb00484.x, & (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft, and substance abuse: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Behavior, 65, 177–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00495.x, & (1950). The grand alliance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.(1993). Some tests of the self-interest and group-value models of procedural justice: Evidence from an organizational appeal procedure. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1109–1124. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256648(1990). Influence of speed of third-party intervention and outcome on negotiator and constituent fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 833–846. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256293, & ([Page 241]1993). The effects of partisan third parties on negotiator behavior and outcome perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 280–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.280, & (1986). Unfair comparisons. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 179–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.179, & (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Watson selection task. Cognition, 31, 187–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277%2889%2990023-1(1992). Product quality and pay equity between lower-level employees and top management: An investigation of distributive justice theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 302–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393226, & (1989). A model of employee responses to drug-testing. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 173–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01423476, & (1990). An experimental test of the impact of drug-testing programs on potential job applicants' attitudes and intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 127–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.127, & (1993). Potential job applicant reactions to employee drug testing: The effect of program characteristics and individual differences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 279–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01015755, & (1994). The justice dilemma in employee selection: Some reflections on the trade-offs between fairness and validity. The Industrial—Organizational Psychologist, 31(3), 90–93.(Disputant reactions to managerial intervention strategies. Group & Organization Management., , , & (in press).1991). Injustice and organizational conflict: The moderating role of power restoration. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 5–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022691, & (1989). Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: Beyond equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 293–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.2.293, & (1991). Procedural justice and worker motivation. In R. M.Steers & L. W.Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (, & (5th ed., pp. 131–143). New York: McGraw-Hill.1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. L.Cooper & I. T.Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 317–372). New York: John Wiley., & (1993). A goal hierarchy model of personality, motivation, and leadership. In L. L.Cummings & B. M.Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 267–322). Greenwich, CT: JAI., , & (1992). Drug testing practices as determinants of employee fairness perceptions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV., & (1993). Drug use and its implications for employee drug testing. In G. R.Ferris & K. M.Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 11, pp. 207–257). Greenwich, CT: JAI.& (1995). Resolving the justice dilemma by improving the outcomes: The case of employee drug screening. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 221–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02249581, & (1995). Advance notice as a means of reducing relative deprivation. Social Justice Research, 8, 217–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02334692, & (Using social justice to build effective work groups. In M.Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (in press). [Page 242]1996). A tale of two paradigms: Psychometrics meets social justice in the conduct of psychological assessment. Unpublished manuscript, Colorado State University., & (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.83.2.85(1988). A critical review of the assumptions underlying drug testing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3, 22–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01016746, & (1994). The role of fairness in implementing large-scale change: Employee evaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 623–638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150706, & (1995). Procedural fairness and organizational commitment under conditions of growth and decline. Social Justice Research, 8, 137–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02334688, & (1993). When applicants rate the examinations: Feedback from 2, 000 people. In B.Nevo & R. S.Jager (Eds.), Educational and psychological testing: The test taker's outlook (pp. 221–237). Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber.(1986). Group identification and collective action. Paper delivered at the Nag's Head Conference on Social Dilemmas, Nag's Head, NC.(1969). Some effects of close and punitive styles of supervision. American Journal of Sociology, 69, 499–510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/223653& (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-4446-9(Justice and influence. In B. M.Staw & L. L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI.(in press).1968). Characteristics of an effective management control system in an industrial organization. Boston: Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration.(1984). A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 360–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2884%2990029-1, , & (1989). Organization of information used for performance appraisals: Role of diary-keeping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 124–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.124, , & (1988). Cognitive research in performance appraisal. In K.Rowland & G. S.Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 6, pp. 109–156). Greenwich, CT: JAI., & (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 203–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.203(1981). Performance appraisal on the line. New York: Wiley., , , & (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animalsCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1993). The prediction paradigm. In H.Schuler, J. L.Farr, & M.Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 125–139). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1992). The third chimpanzee: The evolution and future of the human animal. New York: HarperCollins.(1993). Attitudes about performance appraisal. In H.Schuler, J. L.Farr, & M.Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 141–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1980). A comparison of the behaviorally anchored rating and mixed standard scale formats. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 147–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.2.147, & (1995). How politics can destructure human resources management in the interest of empowerment, support, and justice. In R.Cropanzano & M. K.Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of work organizations (pp. 55–80). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.([Page 243]1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 248–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.2.248, & (1977). Attitudes toward assessment center programs. In J. L.Moses & W. C.Byham (Eds.), Applying the assessment center method. New York: Pergamon.(1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10022-000, , , , & (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19, 252–284., & (1986). Performance appraisal behaviors: Supervisor perceptions and subordinate reactions. Personnel Psychology, 39, 579–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00954.x, , & (1994). Managerial third party dispute resolution: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 7, 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02621056(1987). Procedural justice and participation in task selection: The role of control in mediating justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1148–1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.528, & (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee'diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51, , & (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48(4), 384–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.384(1961). Development and use of weighted application blanks. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.(1988). Cultures of solidarity: Consciousness, action, and contemporary American workers. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1991). Peripheral impacts of co-workers substance abuse. Fort Worth: Institute of Behavioral Research, Texas Christian University., & (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16, 705–722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600404, , & (1991). Recipient responses to performance feedback: A proposed model and its implications. In G. R.Ferris & K. M.Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 9, pp. 73–120). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive approaches to performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 736–741.(1989). Myths and politics in organizational contexts. Group and Organization Studies, 14, 83–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105960118901400108, , , & (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447–488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700208, & (1994). Subordinate influence and the performance appraisal process: Test of a model. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 58, 101–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1030, , , & (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A.Giacalone & P.Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., , & (1995). Looking fair or being fair: Remedial voice procedures in nonunion workplaces. Journal of Management, 21, 27–42., & (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House., & (1976). The influence of performance feedback in appraisal interviews. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49, 75–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1976.tb00332.x, & ([Page 244]1976). Resource theory of social exchange. In J. S.Thibaut, J.Spence, & R.Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 99–111). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press., & (1993). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations (, , & (2nd ed.). New York: Harper-Collins.1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.206(1984). Perceived injustice, referent cognitions, and the concept of comparison level. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 14, 88–108.(1986a). Mediation, arbitration, and the psychology of procedural justice. In R. J.Lewicki, B. H.Sheppard, & M. H.Bazerman, (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 57–79). Greenwich, CT: JAI(1986b). A referent cognitions theory of relative deprivation. In J. M.Olson, C. P.Herman, & M. P.Zanna (Eds.), Social comparison and relative deprivation: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 4, pp. 33–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1986c). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In H. W.Bierhoff, R. L.Cohen, & J.Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 145–162). New York: Plenum. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5059-0_8(1987a). Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace. Social Justice Research, 1, 143–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01048013(1987b). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In J. C.Masters & W. P.Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp. 183–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1987c). Theory and method in social science. Contemporary Social Psychology, 12, 51–54.(1988, August). Justice as dignity. Discussion presented at the Symposium on Theoretical Developments in Procedural Justice at the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.(1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In K.Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 161–183). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.(1997). [Not letting them down gently: Data on why some layoffs are conducted abusively]. Unpublished data.(Fairness as moral virtue. In M.Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Morally managing people and processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(in press).1996). Violence and hostility at work: A model of reactions to perceived injustice. In G. R.VandenBos & E. Q.Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 51–85). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10215-002, & (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 79–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01384939, & (1996). Elaborating procedural fairness: Justice becomes both simpler and more complex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 435–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167296225001, , , , & (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretative analysis of personnel system. In G. R.Ferris & K. M.Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 3, pp. 141–183). Greenwich, CT: JAI., & (1989). Effects of procedural justice, distributive justice, and reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256422, & (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In B. M.Staw & L. L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 129–177). Greenwich, CT: JAI., , & ([Page 245]1993). Self-appraisal and fairness in evaluations. In R.Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 107–131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1986). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 532–546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2886%2990049-1, & (1997). The Churchill effect in managing hard times: Kicking employees when they're down and out. Unpublished manuscript., & (1979). Effects of “voice” and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2243–2261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.113, , , & (1978). Equity and intrinsic motivation: The role of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 556–564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1687, , & (1978). Justice versus justification effects on productivity: Reconciling equity and dissonance findings. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 465–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2878%2990028-4, , , & (1983). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 172–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2883%2990036-7, , , & (1983). Relative deprivation and procedural justifications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 172–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1248, , & (R. W.Griffin, A.O'Leary-Kelly, & J.Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations, Vol. I: Violent behaviors in organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI., & (in press-a). A popcorn metaphor for workplace violence. InWhen tough times make tough bosses: Managerial distancing as a function of layoff blame. Academy of Management Journal., & (in press-b).1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of emotions. New York: Norton.(1966). Participation and the appraisal system. Human Relations, 19, 3–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872676601900101, , & (1992). Perceptions of justice afforded by formal grievance systems as predictors of a belief in a just workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 635–647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00872275(1989). Workplace justice and job satisfaction as predictors of satisfacton with unions and management. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 851–866. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256571, & (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.(1985). Trust-in-supervisor and perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 13, 301–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963%2885%2990003-7, , & (1989). Attitudes toward employee and employer rights in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 49–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01385028, , & (1987). Meta-analysis of assessment center validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 493–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.493, , , & (1988, May-June). Cyanamid's new take on performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review, pp. 36–37, 40–41., & (1995). A test of the group-values and control models of procedural justice from competing perspectives of labor and management. Personnel Psychology, 48, 115–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01749.x(1990). Employee reactions to contextual and session components of performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 371–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.4.371, & (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694–734.(1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.691(1995). Fairness from the applicant's perspective: Reactions to employee selection procedures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 3, 11–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.1995.tb00002.x([Page 246]1994a, April). Development of the selection fairness survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN., & (1994b, April). The perceived fairness of employee selections systems as a predictor of attitudes and self-concept. In the “Selection from the applicant's perspective: Justice and employee selection procedures” symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN., & (1997, August). Civility in organizational downsizing: Antecedents and consequences of fairness in layoff practices. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston., & (1982). The process of conflict escalation and roles of third parties. In G. B. J.Bomers & R. B.Peterson (Eds.), Conflict management and industrial relations (pp. 119–140). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.(1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine.(1987). Dimensions and characteristics of personnel manager perceptions of effective drug-testing programs. Personnel Psychology, 40, 745–763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00622.x, & (1988). Propositions about grievance settlements: Finally consultation with grievants. Personnel Psychology, 41, 107–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00634.x, & (1993). The role of interpersonal justice in organizational grievance systems. In R.Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resources management (pp. 231–255). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1984). Grievances: A review of research and practice. Personnel Psychology, 37, 117–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1984.tb02250.x, & (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.(1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2092623(1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Special Issue: Development of relationships between emotion and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699939008410799(1982). Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations. In J.Greenberg & R. L.Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 389–435). New York: Academic Press.(1984). On the apocryphal nature of inequity distress. In R.Folger (Ed.), The sense of injustice: Social psychological perspectives. New York: Plenum.(1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.340(1987a). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the ends justify the means?Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.55(1987b). Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance evaluations. Social Justice Research, 1, 219–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01048017(1988a). Cultivating an image of justice: Looking fair on the job. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 155–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AME.1988.4275532(1988b). Equity and workplace status: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 606–613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.606(1988c, August). Using social accounts to manage impressions of performance appraisal fairness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.(1989). Cognitive re-evaluation of outcomes in response to underpayment inequity. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 174–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256425(1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.561([Page 247]1990b). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. In B. M.Staw & L. L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 111–157). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1990c). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208(1991). Using explanations to manage impressions of performance appraisal fairness. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 51–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01390438(1993a). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R.Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1993b). Stealing in the name of justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1004(1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 288–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.288(1997). The STEAL motive: Managing the social determinants of employee theft. In R. A.Giacalone & J.Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 85–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(R.Griffin, A.O'Leary-Kelly, & J.Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional work behavior in organizations, vol. 1: Violent behaviors in organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press., & (in press). Aggressive reactions to workplace injustice. In1991). Establishing fairness in the eye of the beholder: Managing impressions of organizational justice. In R.Giacalone & P.Rosenfeld (Eds.), Applied impression management: How image making affects managerial decisions (pp. 111–132). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., , & (1983). Procedural justice, participation and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In P. B.Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 235–256). New York: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5578-9_10, & (1989). Drug testing in the workplace: An overview of legal and philosophical issues. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01385024, , & (1975). Subordinate participation and reactions to the appraisal interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 544–549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.60.5.544(1978). The nature of subordinate participation in the appraisal interview. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 646–658. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255705(1991). A review and critique of honesty test research. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 501–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370090412, & (1994). Expatriate managers and the psychological contract. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 617–626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.617, , & (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley., & (1986). The reckoning. New York: Morrow.(1990, July). What employees say about drug testing. Personnel, 32–36.(1993, August). An evaluation of the procedural fairness of personality tests. In “Procedural Justice” symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA., & (1985). Recruiter counselling behaviours and applicant impressions. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 57–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1985.tb00180.x, & . (1990). Preemployment screening procedures: How human resource managers perceive them. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4, 279–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01125240, , (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00631.x, & ([Page 248]1989). Fairness in employment testing: Validity generalization, minority issues, and the General Aptitude Test Battery. Washington, DC: National Academy Press., & (1992). Equivalence of constructs measured by job-specific and commercially available aptitude tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 298–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.298, , & (1995). Staffing for persons with disabilities: What is “fair” and “job related”?Public Personnel Management, 24, 413–428., , , & (1993). Approaching distributive and procedural justice: Are separate routes necessary? In E. J.Lawler, B.Markovsky, K.Heimer, & J.O'Brien (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 10, pp. 195–221). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1954). Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row.(1989). Selection as a social process. In M.Smith & I. T.Robertson (Eds.), Advances in selection and assessment (pp. 171–187). New York: Wiley.(1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees. Harvard Business Review, 46, 53–62.(1986). Procedural preference as a function of conflict intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 700–710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1990, & (1974). Participation effects in appraisal interviews conducted in a training session. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 168–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0036522, & (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1987). Steal this urine test: Fighting drug hysteria in America. New York: Penguin., & (1981). Retributive justice. In M. J.Lerner & S. C.Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 125–143). New York: Plenum., & (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.(1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 379–403.(1990). Intelligence is not a panacea in personnel selection. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 27(3), 66–67.(1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interviewer validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.184, & (1992, May). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between employment interview validity and degree of structure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Montreal, Quebec., & (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72, & (1986). The effects of grievance activity on productivity. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 40, 75–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2523947(1989). The impact of personnel selection procedures on candidates. In P.Herriot (Ed.), Assessment and selection in organizations (pp. 257–271). Chichester, UK: Wiley., & (1993). Performance-appraisal accuracy: An illusive or sometimes misguided goal? In H.Schuler, J. L.Farr, & M.Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 235–252). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1983). Performance appraisal: A process focus. In B. M.Staw & L. L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 141–197). Greenwich, CT: JAI., & (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349, , & ([Page 249]1981). Supervisor and subordinate reactions to performance appraisal sessions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 311–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2881%2990002-7, , , & (1980). A longitudinal study of behavioral expectation scales: Attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 139–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.2.139(1982). Subordinates' reactions to performance appraisal interviews: A test of feedback and goal-setting techniques. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 581–587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.5.581(1986). Post-industrial manufacturing. Harvard Business Review, November-December, 69–79.(Goal conflict and individual creativity. Creativity Research Journal.(in press).1992). Organizational conflict and individual creativity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 545–566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00989.x, , & (Positive and negative creativity in groups, institutions, and organizations: A model and theoretical extension. Creativity Research Journal., , & (in press).1986). Mitigating circumstance information, censure, and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 537–542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.527, & (1991). Assessing privacy invasiveness of psychological test items: Job reference versus clinical measures of integrity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 531–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01014501(1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.(1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136, & (Kahneman, D., Slovik, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1982). The simulation heuristic. In D.Kahneman, P.Slovic, & A.Tversky, (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201–208). New York: Cambridge University Press., & (1979). Performance appraisal effectiveness: Its assessment and determinants. In B. M.Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 425–478). Greenwich, CT: JAI., & (1987). Fairness and participation in evaluation procedures: Effects on task attitudes and performance. Social Justice Research, 1, 235–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01048018, , , & (1989). Managers handling disputes: Third-party roles and perceptions of fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 687–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256564, & (1994). Managerial third parties: Intervention strategies, process, and consequences. In J.Folger & T.Jones (Eds.), New directions in mediation: Communication research and perspectives (pp. 175–192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., & (1992). Effects of formal authority and experience on third-party roles, outcomes, and perceptions of fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 426–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256381, , & (1989). An analysis of the drug testing decision. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 27–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01385026(1983). Industrial relations performance, exonomic performance, and QWL programs: An interplant analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 37, 3–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2522720, , & (1985). Assessing the effects of industrial relations systems and efforts to improve the quality of working life on organizational effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 509–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256111, , & (1992). From then to now: The development of industrial-organizational psychology in the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 803–835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.803, & ([Page 250]1965). Effects of threat in a performance appraisal interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 311–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022522, , & (1987). An integrated perspective of performance appraisal interviews. Psychological Reports, 61, 639–646. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.19184.108.40.2069, , & (1983). Values in organizational theory and management education. Academy of Management Review, 8, 376–386.(1980). Office politics: Seizing power wielding clout. New York: Warner Books.(1963). Positive programs for performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review, 41, 153–166., & (1988). Upward influence styles: Relationship with performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 528–542. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392642, & (1971). Ingratiation and the use of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 266–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0030587, & (1989). Determinants of grievance activity and the grievance system's impact on employee behavior: An integrative perspective. Academy of Management Review, 14, 445–458.(1989). Managerial reactions to employee dissent: The impact of grievance activity on performance evaluations. Academy of Management journal, 32, 705–717. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256565, & (1991). Effects of grievance activity on absenteeism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 818–824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.818, , & (1993). The influence of selection test type on applicant reactions to employment testing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8, 3–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02230391, & (1984). The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.(1985). To be a mediator: Expressive tactics in mediation. Journal of Social Issues, 411–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb00852.x(1986). Who are organizational third parties and what do they do? In R. J.Lewicki, B. H.Sheppard, & M. H.Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 207–278). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1986). Getting to know your conflict options. Personnel Administration, 31 (6), 77–90., & (1991). The perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698–707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.698, & (1993). Justice considerations in employee drug testing. In R.Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 171–192). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1991). The effects of procedures, social accounts, and benefits level on victims' layoff reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 630–650. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00540.x, & (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656–669. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256704, & (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation. Journal of Management, 21, 657–699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100404, & (1996, April). Promoting fairness through subordinate training: The impact of communication style on manager's effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA., , & (1994). Third party roles played by Turkish managers in subordinates' conflicts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 453–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150509, & (1996). Collective trust and collective action: The decision to trust as a social decision. In R. M.Kramer & T. R.Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 357–389). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610, , & (1997). Evaluations of drug testing programs. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 10, 65–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025671820519, & ([Page 251]1996). Evaluations of tests used for making selection and promotion decisions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 4, 24–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.1996.tb00045.x, , & (1995, August). Justice along the scarcity continuum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, British Columbia., , & (1992). Personal and situational determinants of referent choice. Academy of Management Review, 17, 212–237., & (1979). Frustration, attribution of blame, and aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 183–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2879%2990029-5, & (1992). Supervisory and nonsupervisory employee attitudes about drug testing. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 131–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01384732(1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 751–754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.63.6.751, , & (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 355–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.3.355, , & (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 72–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.87.1.72, & (1988). Procedural goods in a democracy: How one is treated versus what one gets. Social Justice Research, 2, 177–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01054555(1984). The performance feedback process: A preliminary model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 42–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2884%2990011-4(1986). Job performance and appraisal. In C. L.Cooper & I.Robertson (Eds.), Review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 117–155). Chichester, UK: Wiley.(1993). Perceived practicality of unstructured, patterned, and situational interviews. In H.Schuler, J. L.Farr, & M.Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 41–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1976). Procedure: Transnational perspectives and preferences. Yale Law Review, 86, 258–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/795616, , , & (1984, Summer). Performance appraisal revisited. Organizational Dynamics, pp. 20–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616%2884%2990029-9, , & (1977). Appraising managerial performance: Current practices and future directions (Conference Board Rep. No. 732). New York: Conference Board., & (1991). Enforcements, inducements, expected utility and employee misconduct. Journal of Management, 17, 553–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700302, & (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster.(1985). Increasing performance appraisal effectiveness: Matching task types, appraisal process, and rater training. Academy of Management Review, 10, 322–331.(1992). Employee substance abuse and on-the-job behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 309–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.309, & (1981). Representative democracy, “men of zeal,” and testing legislation. American Psychologist, 36, 270–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.3.270(1993). Sympathy and support for industrial actions: A justice analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 781–787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.781, , & (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. W.Thibaut, J. T.Spence, & R. C.Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 211–240). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.(1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J.Gergen, M. S.Greenberg, & R. H.Willis (Eds.), Social exchanges: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2([Page 252]1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G.Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–218). New York: Springer-Verlag., , & (1985). Choosing how to intervene: Factors affecting the use of process and outcome control in third party dispute resolution. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6, 49–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030060105, & (1987). Dispute resolution in the nonunion firm: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31, 465–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022002787031003004(1990). Grievance procedures in nonunion workplaces: An empirical analysis of usage, dynamics, and outcomes. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 66, 823–844.(1988). The modern grievance procedure in the United States. New York: Quorum Books., & (1988). In the age of mankind. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.(1989). Liar's poker. New York: Norton.(1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, 572–587., & (1989). Ingratiation in the development of leader-member exchanges. In R. A.Giacalone & P.Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 343–361). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1986). A field study of job applicant interview perceptions, alternative opportunities, and demographic characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 39, 109–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00577.x, & (1993). Do “honesty” tests really measure honesty?Skeptical Inquirer, 18, 32–41.(1995). Justice and authority relations in organizations. In R.Cropanzano & M. K.Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of the workplace (pp. 83–96). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.(1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952–959. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.112, , & (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 224–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393412, , , & (1985). Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 19–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2885%2990003-4, & (1989). The perception of justice: Tort litigants' views of trials, court-annexed arbitration, and judical settlement conferences. Santa Monica, CA: RAND., , , , , , & (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum., & (1977). Performance appraisal—a survey of current practices. Personnel Journal, 56, 245–247 & 254., & (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AME.1987.4275731, , & (1986). Schema theories, information processing, and organizational behavior. In H. P.Sims, Jr. & D. A.Gioia (Eds.), The thinking organization (pp. 20–48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., & (1989). Attitudes toward employment testing: Scale development, correlates, and “known-group” validation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20, 340–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.20.5.340, , & (1994). Employee benefits: A growing source of psychological contract violations. Human Resource Management, 3, 425–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930330310, & ([Page 253]1994). The effects of applicants' reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715–738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01573.x, , , & (1988). Alternative adjudication: An evaluation of the New Jersey automobile arbitration program. Santa Monica, CA: Institute for Civil Justice, RAND., , , , & (1976). Lying behavior and eveluation of lies. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 575–658. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1918.104.22.1685, & (1977). Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, and drug use at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 114–116., & (1985). Expectation, procedural justice, and alternative reactions to being deprived of a desired outcome. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 114–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2885%2990010-1(1984). Responses to relative deprivation: A conceptual framework. In P.Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 192–218). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage., & (1973). Hotel pilferage: A case study in occupational theft. In P.Rock & M.Mclntosh (Eds.), Deviance and social control (pp. 209–228). London: Tavistock.(1984). Moral outrage and pragmatism: Explanations for collective action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 484–496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2884%2990039-8, , & (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.(1977). Resource mobilization and social movement: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212–1241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/226464, & (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderating effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376, & (1989). The perceived fairness of managerial promotion practices. Human Relations, 42, 815–827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872678904200905(1987). User acceptance of peer appraisals in an industrial setting. Personnel Psychology, 40, 785–797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00624.x, & (1985). Strategies for reducing employee turnover: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 342–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.2.342, & (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626–637. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256489, & (1957). An uneasy look at performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review, 34, 89–94.(Organizational contracting: A “rational” exchange? In J.Halpern & R.Stern (Eds.), Debating rationality: Non-rational elements of organizational decision making (pp. 168–210). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press., & (in press).1977, Autumn). The stress-performance controversy. Michigan State University Business Topics, pp. 53–59.(1965). Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review, 43, 123–129., , & (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. M.Kramer & T. R.Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 166–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610, , & (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.(1987). Compensation (, & (2nd ed.). Piano, TX: Business Publications.1989). Evaluating employee integrity: Moral and methodological problems. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 203–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01423478, & (1995). Sociology. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Publishing Group., & ([Page 254]1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845(1986). The prediction of employee counterproduction through attitude assessment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1, 134–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01018809(1986). Failures to detect moderated effects with ordinary least squares-moderated multiple regression: Some reasons and a remedy. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 282–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.2.282, , & (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226–256., & (1992). Studies of the structured behavioral interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 571–587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.5.571, , , , , , & (1996). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations. In R. M.Steers, L. W.Porter, & G. A.Bigley (Eds.), Motivation and leadership at work (pp. 53–71). New York: McGraw-Hill.(1979). The use of reference reports in personnel selection: A review and evaluation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 287–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1979.tb00463.x(1995). Fairness versus self interest: Asymmetric moral imperatives in ultimatum bargaining. In R.Kramer & D.Messick (Eds.), Negotiation in its social context (pp. 240–267). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., & (1986). When your top choice turns you down: Effect of rejected offers on the utility of selection tests. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 133–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.133(1991). Influence of job characteristics on the acceptability of employee drug testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 447–453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.3.447, ., & (1990). College students' attitudes toward employee drug testing procedures. Personnel Psychology, 43, 615–631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb02399.x, ., & (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.(1986). Outcome expectancies of people who conduct performance appraisals. Personnel Psychology, 39, 827–837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00597.x, & (1985). The role of inferential accuracy in performance ratings. Academy of Management Review, 10, 109–115., & (1991). Interpersonal relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 352–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256446, , & (1979). Utilizing feedback and goal setting to increase performance appraisal interviewer skills of managers. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 566–576. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255745, & (1979). An exploration of the relationship between performance feedback interview characteristics and interview outcomes as perceived by managers and subordinates. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 25–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1979.tb00437.x, & (1989). The predictive validity of graphological inferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 737–745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869%2889%2990120-7, & (1993). Face validity revisited. In B.Nevo & R. S.Jager (Eds.), Educational and psychological testing: The test taker's outlook (pp. 17–28). Toronto, Canada: Hogrefe & Huber.(1987,). The influence of individual characteristics and assessment center evaluation on career exploration behavior and job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 187–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791%2887%2990018-2, & (1990). An evaluation of preemployment drug testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 629–639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.629, , & ([Page 255]1985). Worker attitudes, worker behavior, and productivity in the U.S. automoble industry, 1959–1976. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 38, 544–557. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2523990, & (1987). Arbitration and distributive justice: Equity or equality?Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 359–365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.359, & (1989). Honesty and integrity testing. Atlanta, GA: Applied Information Services., , & (1989. Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 219–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.124, , & (1995). The perceived funniness of humorous stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 908–931. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167295219005, & (1996a). To grieve or not to grieve: Factors related to voicing discontent in an organizational simulation. Unpublished manuscript.(1996b). Voicing discontent: What happens to the grievance filer after the grievance?Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 52–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.52(1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679, , & (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.(1976). Background data. In M. D.Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology ((1st ed., pp. 609–644). Chicago: Rand McNally.1988). Procedural fairness and work group responses to performance evaluation systems. Social Justice Research, 2, 193–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01054556, , & (1987). Standing at Armageddon: The United States, 1877–1919. New York: Norton.(1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72, 407–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022602(1950). A neglected factor in the frustration-aggression hypothesis: A comment. Journal of Psychology, 29, 271–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1950.9916032(1975). Performance appraisal: Useful but still resisted. Harvard Business Review, 53, 74–80.(1986). Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 211–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.211, & (1967). Justice. New York: Random House.(1985). Situational constraints: Sources, consequences, and future considerations. In K. M.Rowland & G. R.Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 79–113). Greenwich, CT: JAI., , & (1981). Power in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.(1992). Salary dispersion, location in the salary distribution, and turnover among college administrators. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45, 753–763. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2524591, & (1993). The effects of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively: Evidence from college and university faculty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 382–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393373, & (1975). Behavior in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill., , Ill, & (1985). A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 709–719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.4.706, & (1996, April). Impact of interactional justice on fairness in organizational conflict resolution. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, San Diego, CA., & ([Page 256]1986). Does salary discussion hurt the developmental performance appraisal?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 357–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978%2886%2990035-X, & . (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 368–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255985(1989). Ingratiation and impression management in the organization. In R. A.Giacalone & P.Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 235–249). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1990). Methodology in business ethics research: A review and critical assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 457–471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00382838, & (1992). Preference for decision control in organizational decision making. Social Justice Research, 5, 343–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01050754(1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35, 1–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1982.tb02184.x, & (1974). Managing organizational conflict: A nontraditional approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.(1978, Winter). “Conflict management” and “conflict resolution” are not synonymous terms. California Management Review, pp. 67–75.(1987). Organization theory: Structure, design, and applications ((2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.1993). Self-appraisal and perceptions of the appraisal discussion: A field experiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 129–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140204, , , , , & (1989). Work-sample tests of trainability: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 402–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.402, & (1991). The impact of personnel selection and assessment methods on candidates. Human Relations, 44, 963–982. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679104400904, , , & (1982). Work sample tests: Validity, adverse impact and applicant reactions. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 171–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1982.tb00091.x, & (1986). Management selection in Britain: A survey and critique. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 45–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1986.tb00212.x, & (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256693, & (1994). Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 137–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256773, , & (1991). Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 322–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.322, & (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 133–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.133(1995). What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.(1996). The deterrent value of drug and integrity testing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 431–445, , & (1994). A field study of job applicants' reactions to personality and cognitive ability testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 987–992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.987, , & (1996). Personality and drug testing: An exploration of perceived fairness of alternatives to urinalysis. rnal of Business and Psychology, 5, 459–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02251781, , & (1994). Stigma as a determinant of legalization. In S. B.Sitkin & R. J.Bies (Eds.), The legalistic organization (pp. 137–168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., , & ([Page 257]1993). The contract of individuals and organizations. In L. L.Cummings & B. M.Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 1–43). Greenwich, CT: JAI., & (1980). Experimental research on third-party intervention in conflict: Toward some generalizations. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 379–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.379(1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (, , & (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.1988). An analysis of managers' reactions to their own performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 63–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.1.63, & (1987). Pre-employment honesty testing: Fakability, reactions of test takers, and company image. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1, 248–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01020813, & (1993). When recruitment fails to attract: Individual expectations meet organizational realities in recruitment. In H.Schuler, J. L.Farr, & M.Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 27–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44, 487–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb02402.x, , & (1993). Applicant reactions to alternative selection procedures. Journalof Business and Psychology, 7, 261–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01015754, & (1989). Integrity testing for personnel selection: An update. Personnel Psychology, 42, 491–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00666.x, , & (1994). Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to economic hardship: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 455–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.455, , & (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.(1997). Personal responsibility: Applications of the triangle model. In L. L.Cummings & B.M.Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 241–301). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.632, , , , & (1988). The problem of group differences in ability test scores in employment selection. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 272–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791%2888%2990040-1(1977). Job sample vs. paper-and-pencil trades and technical tests: Adverse impact and examinee attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 30, 187–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1977.tb02088.x, , , , & (1993). Group composition, gender, and race effects on assessment center ratings. In H.Schuler, J. L.Farr, & M.Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 315–332). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1976). Applicant decisions in the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 184–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.2.184, & (1992). Beyond differential prediction: Fairness in selection. In D. M.Saunders (Ed.), New approaches to employee management: Fairness in employee selection (Vol. 1, pp. 21–46). Greenwich, CT: JAI., & (1993). Computer-based testing applied to selection of secretarial applicants. Personnel Psychology, 46, 149–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00871.x, , , & (1984). Metaanalysis of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 37, 407–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1984.tb00519.x, , , & ([Page 258]1990). Account episodes: The management and escalation of conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(1994). Managers as informal third parties: The impact of supervisor-subordinate relationships on interventions. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 7, 73–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02621061, & (1993a). Is there a dilemma between validity and acceptance in the employment interview? In B.Nevo & R. S.JSger (Eds.), Educational and psychological testing: The test taker's Outlook (pp. 239–250). Toronto, Canada: Hogrefe & Huber.(1993b). Social validity of selection situations: A concept and some empirical results. In H.Schuler, J. L.Farr, & M.Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 11–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1993). The individual and organizational sides of personnel selection and assessment. In H.Schuler, J. L.Farr, & M.Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 1–5). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., , & (1993). Effects of assessment center participation on self-esteem and on evaluation of the selection situation. In H.Schuler, J. L.Farr, & M.Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 109–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1992). A field study of employees' attitudes and behaviors after promotion decisions, journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 511–514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.511, , & (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 23, 46–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2092239, & (1988). Why plaintiffs' counsel challenge tests, and how they can successfully challenge the theory of “validity generalization.”Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 331–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791%2888%2990043-7(1991). The effects of explanations on negative reactions to deceit. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 614–630. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393276(1993). Reconciling theoretical differences among procedural justice researchers by re-evaluating what it means to have one's view “considered”: Implications for third-party managers. In R.Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 51–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1993). Comparing three processes underlying judgments of procedural justice: A field study of mediation and arbitration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1167–1177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1997, & (1994). Explanations for rejection decisions: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy and moderate their enhancement of justice perceptions?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 346–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1041, , & (1994). An investigation of managerial interventions in employee disputes. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 7, 37–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02621059, & (1983). Managers as inquisitors: Some lessons from the law. In M. H.Bazerman & R. J.Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiation in organizations (pp. 193–213). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.(1984). Third party conflict intervention: A procedural framework. In B. M.Staw & L. L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 141–191). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1985). Justice is no simple matter: Case for elaborating our model of procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 953–962. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.523(1994). Informal conflict intervention: Advice and dissent. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 7, 53–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02621060, , , & (1992). Organizational justice: The search for fairness in the workplace. New York: Macmillan., , & ([Page 259]1988). Procedural justice from the third party perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 629–637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2069, , & (1991). Behavioral other-enhancement: Strategically obscuring the link between performance and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 79–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.11, & (1984). Reactions of employees to performance appraisal interviews as a function of their participation in rating scale development. Personnel Psychology, 37, 703–710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1984.tb00534.x, & (1983). A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism. Science, 250, 1665–1668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.2270480(1993). Fairness in personnel selection. Aldershot, New Zealand: Avebury.(1981). The expanding circle: Ethics and sociobiology. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.(1993a). The legalistic organization: Definitions, dimensions, and dilemmas. Organization Science, 4, 345–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.3.345, & (1993b). Social accounts in conflict situations: Using explanations to manage conflict. Human Relations, 46, 349–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600303, & (1993). Prescriptions for justice: Using social accounts to legitimate the exercise of professional control. Social Justice Research, 6, 87–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01048734, , & (1997). Retaliation for perceived unfair treatment: Examining the roles of procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434, & (1993). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00867.x, , , , & (1975). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 635–637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0077157(1997). The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work. In R. A.Giacalone & J.Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 1–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(1945). A study on the use of a work sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29, 14–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0061102, , & (1996). Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in France and the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 134–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.134, & (1991). The stability of comparative referent choice and feelings of inequity: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 185–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030120303, & (1991, April). The influence of selection procedures on attitudes about the organization and job pursuit intentions. In the “Perceived validity of selection procedures: Implications for organizations” symposium conducted at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Saint Louis, MO., , , & (1990, August). Effects of drug testing selection method and justification provided for the test on reactions to drug testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, CA., & (1989). Effects of job applicant drug testing practices on reactions to drug testing. In F.Hoy (Ed.), Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings (pp. 190–195)., & (1984). The effects of feedback sequence and expertise of the rater on perceived feedback accuracy. Personnel Psychology, 37, 487–506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1984.tb00525.x, , & (1989). Individuals' attitudes toward organizational drug testing policies and practices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 518–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.518, & (1989, June). Individuals' reactions to job applicant drug testing practices. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC., , & ([Page 260]1990). Privacy in organizations: Theoretical issues, research findings, and protection mechanisms. In G. R.Ferris & K. M.Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 8, pp. 349–411). Greenwich, CT: JAI., & (1989, April). Personnel selection procedures and invasion of privacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Boston., , & (1990). The effects of precipitation events and coerciveness of the procedures on individuals' reactions to drug testing. Unpublished manuscript., , & (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions: The moderating effect of locus of control. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 227–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1987.tb00255.x& (1949). The merican soldier. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., , , , , , & (1993). Workers' evaluations of the “ends” and the “means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1022, & (1990). Using relative deprivation theory to explain satisfaction with income and pay level: A multistudy examination. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 423–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256332, , & (1992). Creativity and stress. Creativity and Innovation Management, 1, 183–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.1992.tb00052.x, , & (1987). Disadvantaged group responses to perceived inequality: From passive acceptance to collective action. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 259–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1987.9713692, , , & (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393795, , , , & (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67(1983). Participants' reactions to assessment center. Personnel Administrator, March, 85–91., & (1995). Does the experience of organizational justice mitigate the invasion of privacy engendered by random drug testing? An empirical investigation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 211–225., & (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00696.x, , & (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley., & (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541–566. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3480099, & (1993). Conflict and negotiation process in organizations. In M. D.Dunnette & L. M.Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology ((2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 651–717). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.1976). A survey of managerial interests with respect to conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 315–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255781, & (1949). Personnel selection: Test and measurement techniques. New York: John Wiley.(1992). Assessment centers in human resource management. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.. ([Page 261]1993). The effect of selection practices on applicants' perceptions of organizational characteristics. In H.Schuler, J. L.Farr, & M.Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 57–69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.. (1982). Assessment centers and managerial performance. New York: Academic Press.. & (1990). Developing managerial talent through simulation. American Psychologist, 45, 190–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.190, Ill, & (1997). What's good about revenge? The avenger's perspective. In R. J.Lewicki, R. J.Bies, & B. H.Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 145–160). Greenwich, CT: JAI., & (Seeking revenge in organizations: An exploration into the hearts and minds of avengers. Unpublished manuscript., & (in press).1993). Everyday forms of employee resistance. Sociological Forum, 8, 25–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01112329(1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendants' evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law and Society Review, 18, 51–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3053480(1987). Conditions leading to value expressive effect in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1683(1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law and Society Review, 22, 301–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3053563(1989). The quality of dispute resolution processes and outcomes: Measurement problems and possibilities. Denver University Law Review, 66, 419–436.(1990). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1240(1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. S.Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1981). The role of distributional and procedural fairness in the endorsement of formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 642–655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1992, & (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.522, & (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In R. M.Kramer & T. R.Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 331–356). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610, & (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects of satisfaction with citizen-police encounters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 281–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0104_1, & (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press., & (1985). Influence of voice and satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 333–344., , & (Social justice and social movements. In D.Gilbert, S. T.Fiske, & G.Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (, & (in press).4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.1989). Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut the costs of conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., , & ([Page 262]1996). Procedural justice and conflict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden, Netherlands.(1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034–1046. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2064, , , & (1996). The consistency rule and the voice effect: The influence of expectations in procedural fairness judgments and performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 411–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-0992%28199605%2926:3%3C411::AID-EJSP766%3E3.0.CO;2-2, , & (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.11, , & (1982). Business ethics: Concepts and cases. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.(1989). Impression management in the context of performance appraisal. In R. A.Giacalone & P.Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1969). Industrial social psychology. In G.Lindzey & E.Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 196–268). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.(1981). Mediation: An analysis, review, and proposed research. Journal of Conflict ReiSlution, 25, 157–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002200278102500107(1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21, 515–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100306, & (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon., , & (1993). Newcomer orientation programs that facilitate organizational entry. In H.Schuler, J. L.Farr, & M.Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 125–139). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1988). On the uses of psychological theory and research in the process of ethical inquiry. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 283–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.283(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1683, , & (1986). Beyond negative affectivity: Measuring stress and satisfaction in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8(2), 141–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J075v08n02_09, , & (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.487, & (1991). The effects of impression management on the performance appraisal task. anizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 70–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978%2891%2990006-F, & (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 232–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256734, & (1992). The eight essential steps to conflict resolution: Preserving relationships at work, at home, and in the community. New York: Putnam.(1964). Reduction of cognitive dissonance through task enhancement and effort expenditure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 533–539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0047151(1996). An affective events approach to job satisfaction. In B. M.Staw & L. L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI., & (1987). The mediation process: The effect of mediator bias and disputant power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 123–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167287131012, & ([Page 263]1978). Privacy and personnel records: A look at employee attitudes. The Civil Liberties Review, 4(5), 28–34.(1989). Ceilings in the reliability and validity of performance ratings: The case of expert raters. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 213–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256428, & (1973). Subordinate personality as a moderator of the effects of participation in three types of appraisal interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 54–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035411, , & (1993). Employment testing and public policy: The case of the General Aptitude Test Battery. In H.Schuler, J. L.Farr, & M.Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 183–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1993). The moral sense. New York: Free Press.(1991). General alignment and over support in biased mediation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35, 594–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022002791035004002, , & (1994). The moral animal. New York: Pantheon.(1992). Reactions to unjust dismissal and third-party dispute resolution: A justice framework. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 283–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01388306, , & (1968). Cognitive theories in social psychology. In G.Lindzey & E.Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 320–411). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.(1971). Problem with the use of “moderator” variables. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 295–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0031543(1995). The justice perspective of job stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 487–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160508(1990). The efficacy of preemployment drug screening for marijuana and cocaine in predicting employment outcome. Journal of the American Medical Association, 264, 2639–2643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03450200047029, , & (
About the Authors[Page 277]
Russell Cropanzano is Associate Professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Colorado State University. He received his PhD in I/O Psychology from Purdue University in 1988. He is a member of both the Academy of Management and the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology and serves on the editorial board for the Journal of Applied Psychology. He has published more than 35 scholarly articles and chapters, which have appeared in such places as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Social Justice Research. In addition, he has edited two books: Justice in the Workplace and Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support. He is a coauthor of the forthcoming book Advances in Organizational Justice and of Justice in the Workplace (Vol. 2). He has lectured widely, delivering more than 25 talks. He has also been active internationally, having presented papers in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and The Netherlands.
Robert Folger is Freeman Professor of Doctoral Studies and Research, and Professor of Organizational Behavior, at the A. B. Freeman School of Business, Tulane University. He received his PhD at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. His research interests include work motivation, fairness, performance appraisal, compensation, layoffs, workplace aggression, and ethics. His honors and awards include the New Concept Award from the Organizational Behavior Division of the Academy of Management for his work on reactions [Page 278]to perceived unfair treatment. He has also served as a consultant with the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal Service, the IRS, and with companies in various industries.
He has authored more than 75 publications, including articles in the Academy of Management Journal, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Research on Negotiations in Organizations, and Research in Organizational Behavior. He edited a book on The Sense of Injustice and coauthored a book on Controversial Issues in Social Research Methods.