Organizational Justice

Conceptual Overview

Research points to three distinct categories of events that can lead individuals to make judgments about the fairness of the treatment they receive at work. Generally speaking, individuals want to receive fair outcomes (distributive justice), believe that the processes used to determine those outcomes were conducted in a fair manner (procedural justice), and receive the appropriate amount of information up to and during the events while being treated in a cordial manner throughout the process (interactional justice).

While all three categories of fairness are important, the justice research began with scholarly inquiry surrounding the fairness of reward allocations. Simply put, individuals want to know that they are receiving what they believe they deserve. In addition, research has found that individuals use allocation rules to determine whether an outcome is fair or unfair. Specifically, individuals want to know that allocations have been made on the basis of contributions or level of performance (equity), that allocations are equally distributed (equality), and that individual need is considered during the allocation process (need). It is important to note that each of these rules may not engender perceptions of distributive fairness for all individuals. Cultural and situational factors may influence which rules are given the greatest weight. In a similar vein, having a referent other to compare one's outcomes with may also have an impact on perceptions of distributive justice. For example, if an individual working at a fast-food restaurant receives a 50-cent hourly raise, she may be inclined to think the raise is fair. However, if she subsequently learns that a lower-performing coworker also received a 50-centper-hour raise, she may now think she should have received a larger increase because her efforts are more productive than those of the coworker.

As mentioned above, individuals desire a fair process leading up to outcomes. Procedural justice designates perceptions regarding the means by which allocation decisions are made. Researchers in the field of organizational justice have shown that procedures are most likely to be seen as fair if they contain certain attributes. Specifically, individuals want to know that the processes used to make the allocations were not biased and were accurate, correctable, representative of the views of all parties concerned (that is, allowed for voice, or input, from affected parties), and consistent with ethical standards. Of these attributes, probably the most widely studied is that of voice. Employees consistently prefer to have a voice when important decisions are made. Moreover, research suggests voice can even mitigate the negative effects of an unfair outcome. For example, many companies use the process of arbitration to settle difficult work-place disputes. If an employee is given a 2-week suspension for slacking on the job, the employee may have the option of contesting the discipline as part of an arbitration process. Even if the employee loses the case, the opportunity for voice during the decision process may mollify some of the negative feelings surrounding the suspension. Therefore, it is not a surprise that procedural justice is a good predictor of organizational citizenship behaviors, trust, organizational commitment, and the like.

...