CH 11 IOP justice and fairness

Voice

Having the possibility of challenging, influencing, or expressing an objection to a process or outcome

Interactional justice

Type of justice concerned with the sensitivity with which employees are treated and linked to the extent that an employee feels respected by the employee

Distributive justice

Type of justice in which the allocation of outcomes or rewards to organizational members is perceived as fair.

Procedural justice

Type of justice in which the process (or procedure) by which ratings are assigned or rewards are distributed is perceived as fair

Organizational justice

Type of justice that is composed of organizational procedures, outcomes, and interpersonal interactions.

, the strongest predictors of favorability ratings across the different selection proce- dures were

(1) having the opportunity to show what one can do (called "opportunity to perform") in the selection process and (2) the perceived face validity of the selection pro- cedures. This may be one of the reasons why work sample assessment, situational judg- ment tests, and simulations (discussed in Chapter 3) receive such high reviews from applicants.

Schroth and Shah (2000) examined the effect of experiences of procedural fairness on self‐esteem.

. Their study examined the effect of fair and unfair procedures com- bined with positive and negative outcomes. These researchers discovered that when an interaction was considered procedurally fair and resulted in a positive outcome for the study participant, esteem was enhanced. Conversely, when procedures were considered procedur- ally fair, but the outcome was negative, esteem was reduced. In the case of negative out- comes, fair procedures led to lower self‐esteem than was the case with the unfair condition. Ironically, this result suggests that unfair procedures can insulate an individual from having to consider the possibility that he or she is unqualified or performed poorly.

Assimilation model

Assimilation model Model for addressing diversity that recruits, selects, trains, and motivates employees so that they share the same values and culture. .

Trust

Belief in how a person or an organization will act on some future occasion based upon previous interactions with that person or organization.

Equality norm

Definition of fairness based on the view that people should receive approximately equal rewards; most common foundation for defining fairness in Scandinavian and Asian countries.

Need norm

Definition of fairness based on the view that people should receive rewards in proportion to their needs.

Merit or equity norm

Definition of fairness based on the view that those who work hardest or produce the most should get the greatest rewards; most common foundation for defining fairness in the United States.

Diversity

Differences in demographic characteristics; also includes differences in values, abilities, interests, and experiences.

McFarlin and Sweeney also found some evidence that distributive and procedural justice work jointly to influ- ence behavior and attitudes.

If distributive justice was low, procedural justice had a strong influence on the attachment that an individual had to an organization; similarly, if procedural justice was low, distributive justice had a substantial influence on attach- ment.

Protection model

Protection model Model for addressing diversity that identifies disadvantaged and underrepresented groups and provides special protections for them

. Affirmative action programs can take many forms, including the following:

Specialized recruiting programs intended to reach underrepresented groups in the workforce Specialized pre‐ or post‐hire training to develop job‐related KSAOs Mentoring programs for underrepresented groups Planned developmental opportunities such as assignment to particular teams and departments Specialized performance feedback programs

. Donovan, Drasgow, and Munson (1998) developed a method to measure feelings of interpersonal justice, which they labeled the PFIT (perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment) scale. The scale concentrates on rela- tionships among employees, co‐workers, and supervisors, including items such as the following:

Supervisors play favorites. Employees are treated fairly. Employees are trusted. Co‐workers put one another down. Employees' hard work is appreciated.

Inclusion

The degree to which individuals feel safe, valued, and able to be authentic at work both as individuals and as members of various groups.

Relational demography

The relative makeup of various demographic characteristics in particular work group

Cawley, Keeping, and Levy (1998) completed a meta‐analysis of 27 studies on the impact of employee participation in the evaluation process on feelings of fairness.

They concluded that participation (e.g., discussing the evaluation before it was finalized) had a substantial effect on feelings of fairness by the person being evaluated.

Siegel, Post, Brockner, Fishman, and Garden (2005) examined the relationship between procedural justice and work-life balance.

They discovered that when an employee felt that procedures were fairly implemented (regardless of whether the procedures related to an For individuals who have lost their jobs, low levels of perceived procedural and distributive justice may be related to a higher probability of filing an employment discrimination claim. issue of work-life balance!), the stress of work-life conflict was lower and the com- mitment to the organization remained high, even in the face of the fact that the conflict had not been reduced in any objective way. This finding provides a very strong argument for encouraging procedural fairness.

Value model

Value model Model for addressing diversity in which each element of an organization is valued for what it uniquely brings to the organization.

Affirmative action programs (AAPs)

acknowledge that particular demographic groups (e.g., women, African Americans, Hispanics, the disa- bled) may be underrepresented in the work environment, and these programs provide spe- cific mechanisms for reducing this underrepresentation.

Research has demon- strated that the definition of fairness is influenced not only by

individualism- collectivism (Gelfand et al., 2002) but also by another of the Hofstede dimensions: power distance. Individuals from cultures marked by low power distance are much more likely to see violations of trust than their counterparts in cultures marked by high power distance (Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002). More generally, in a large meta‐analysis of over 190,000 employees working in 32 distinct countries and regions, Shao, Rupp, Skarlicki, and Jones (2013) found that justice effects are strongest among nations associated with individualism, femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and low power distance.

Across these investigations, respondents were most positive toward

interviews, work sample tests, and résumés, and least positive toward graphology, personal contacts, and honesty and integrity tests.

Anderson, Born, and Cunningham‐Snell (2001) have reviewed the available research on applicant reactions. They came to several conclusions, which we have summarized below. Where confirming subsequent research applies, we have added the citation.

pg427

TABLE 11.1 Research Findings on Reactions to Affirmative Action Programs.

pg430 12.2 is more reading based. Reread that section

If distributive justice was low,

procedural justice had a strong influence on the attachment that an individual had to an organization; similarly, if procedural justice was low, distributive justice had a substantial influence on attach- ment