Procedural Justice

Conceptual Overview

Early research on PJ focused on how decisions were made in dispute-resolution processes that spanned two [Page 1305]different legal systems. Responses to process appeared to exert considerable influence on human cognition and behavior in the acceptance of outcomes. The concept was a product of research in the psychology of justice and the behavioral study of process. The central argument was that people cared both about the procedures by which decisions were made and the fairness of these processes. Results from this research found that PJ judgments heightened outcome satisfaction of participants, as well as greater acceptance, and thus compliance, with the verdict. Subsequent research by Lind and Tyler disputed the above notion that procedures were adequate in determining fairness because of their direct relationship with outcomes. Rather, procedures were important for specific individuals because of the effect of their relational significance on relationships with their group or social context.

Leventhal advanced the concept of PJ by identifying six factors with which to assess fairness in organizational procedures. These were: consistency, impartiality, accuracy of information, allowing decisions to be reviewed, allowing input and participation of employees, and the inclusion of ethic and moral standards. Each of these factors will apply differently in diverse organizational context.

PJ is interrelated to two other facets of justice: distributive and interactional justice. PJ concerns fairness in procedures while distributive justice refers to the fairness of outcomes; interactional justice concerns fairness in interpersonal treatment. Even though debates on how various aspects of the organizational justice intermix remain open-ended, PJ does not concern itself with the distributive effects of decisions or the way people are treated. Another difference is that PJ is an incremental predictor of actual behavior.

In the past decade, PJ research has widened into other fields, ranging from education, job promotions, organization citizenship, change management, trust between management and employees, team performance, organizational dispute resolution, to social harmony. The bulk of this research has shown that there is a positive correlation between PJ and measures of organizational citizenship and positive attitudes toward change; participants tend to behave more harmoniously and develop greater trust toward the organization as a whole where these score highly. Such respondents also demonstrate increased levels of satisfaction and acceptance of decisions.

Critical Commentary and Future Directions

Greenberg has argued that there are different dimensions of justice, which creates problems with measurement. This means PJ is context sensitive, and elements of justice may differ across organizations. Paterson, Green, and Cary note that even if standards can be customized according to distinct sets of variables, characterization of fairness may be subjective and individualistic for different groups of respondents across any single organization.

Recent research by Blader, Chang, and Tyler that compared data on the importance of fair group process cross-nationally found there was regular variance in the ways in which such processes were perceived between countries with distinct cultural backgrounds. Although these factors do not necessarily invalidate any objective standards, context sensitivity suggests that fair processes may be more robust on a contextually specific basis. Hence, PJ is a dynamic concept dependent on a specific set of conditions, thereby creating challenges for managers and adjudicators to match processes for dissimilar circumstances.

...