8406 words
367 paragraphs
14
Promote Procedural and Interactional Justice to Enhance Individual and Organizational Outcomes
JERALD GREENBERG
People in the workplace expect to be treated fairly and respond negatively when this expectation appears to have been violated. In fact, among employees asked to identify events that made them angriest, “being treated unfairly on the job” was found to be the most popular response (Fitness, 2000). Considering this concern, it is not surprising that the study of people’s perceptions of fairness in organizations, known as organizational justice (Greenberg, 1987), has been of considerable interest to scholars in organizational behavior (OB) and related fields (Greenberg, 1996, 2007).
By examining several key aspects of this work here, I identify a general principle of organizational justice in addition to two more specific subprinciples. Following this, I discuss special cases and exceptions to these principles as well as issues regarding implementation of the principle. Finally, to illustrate the principles in action, I describe some case examples drawn from incidents in a variety of organizational settings. To set the stage for these discussions, I begin by providing some background material that will put the major concepts into perspective.
Organizational justice is widely regarded to be composed of at least three distinct forms - distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. I now describe these.
Distributive justice
For the two decades spanning the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, Adams’s equity theory (1965) was the prevailing approach to fairness in the workplace. Derived from Homans’ (1961) conceptualization of distributive justice, equity theory focused on people’s perceptions of the fairness of the relative distribution of outcomes (i.e. rewards) and inputs (i.e. contributions) between themselves and others. The theory claims that people who perceive these conditions as being unequal experience the negative state of inequity distress, which they are motivated to redress by adjusting their own or the other’s outcome or inputs either behaviorally or cognitively.
Equity theory has received good support from many of the early studies designed to test its basic tenets (for a review, see Greenberg, 1982). It also has been used to account for a wide variety of organizational phenomena. For example, equity theory has provided a useful basis for explaining why cuts in pay encourage factory workers to steal from their employers (Greenberg, 1990a) and why the performance of professional baseball players declines during seasons in which (as free agents) they are paid less than they were the previous season (Sturman and Thibodeau, 2001). Although it is not studied as much as it was during the 1970s, equity theory remains today’s dominant conceptualization of distributive justice used by scientists in the field of OB (Mowday and Colwell, 2003).
Procedural justice
Some theorists have criticized equity theory on the grounds that its exclusive focus on distributions is overly narrow. This precludes it from accounting for many of the feelings of injustice people experience that cannot be captured in terms of relative outcomes and inputs. In a seminal article, Leventhal (1980) expressed this sentiment explicitly by posing the question, “What should be done with equity theory?” (p. 27). His answer called for supplementing our understanding of distributive justice - the perceived fairness of how outcomes are distributed - with a focus on procedural justice - the perceived fairness of the manner in which outcomes are determined.
The seminal work on procedural justice was Thibaut and Walker’s (1975) monograph describing their program of research on fairness perceptions in legal disputes. Specifically, these researchers compared legal systems differing with respect to the amount of control disputants had over the procedures used to resolve disputes. Repeatedly, they found that the procedures disputants believed to be fairest were ones that granted them a voice in proceedings - that is, the capacity to influence outcomes (for an update, see Lind and Kulik, 2009).
Leventhal (1980; Leventhal, Karuza, and Fry, 1980) reinforced the importance of voice in fair procedures while also making two key claims: (1) that fair procedures are important to people in contexts other than dispute resolution and (2) that when people consider fair procedures in these contexts, they take into account factors in addition to voice. These factors - Leventhal’s six “rules of fair procedure” - are as follows:• Consistency. Procedures should be consistent across time and persons.
• Bias suppression. Procedures should not be affected by personal self-interest or blind allegiance to existing preconceptions.
• Accuracy. Procedures should be based on completely accurate and valid information.
• Correctability. Procedures should include opportunities to modify and reverse decisions (e.g. appeals and grievances).
• Representativeness. Procedures should reflect the basic concerns, values, and outlooks of the individuals who are affected by them.
• Ethicality. Procedures should be in keeping with the moral and ethical values held by the individuals involved.
The conceptualizations of Thibaut and Walker (1975) and of Leventhal (1980) received considerable support when, as recommended by Greenberg and Folger (1983; Folger and Greenberg, 1985), they were applied to studying organizations (Greenberg, 1990b). Research in this realm grew dramatically after some of the earliest studies revealed two important findings.
First, perceptions of the fairness of procedures used in organizations predicted key job outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction) independently of the effects of perceptions of the fairness of those distributions themselves. For example, whereas distributive justice was the primary predictor of workers’ satisfaction with their raises, procedural justice was the primary predictor of people’s feelings of commitment and trust (e.g. Folger and Konovsky, 1989; see Chapter 21, this volume). Taking a different approach, Greenberg (1986a) asked workers to indicate the factors that contributed to the fairness of their company’s performance appraisal system (Chapter 5). Supporting the distinction between the two types of justice, participants’ responses fell into two independent categories, distributive factors (e.g. pay as based on job performance) and procedural factors (e.g. performance rating is based on accurate information).
A second important finding from early studies (e.g. Alexander and Ruderman, 1987; Tyler and Caine, 1981) is that procedural justice accounted for significantly more variance than distributive justice in people’s assessments of fairness in organizations. In other words, fairness of procedures carried greater weight than fairness of outcome distributions. Not surprisingly, researchers took this as a mandate to focus on procedural justice, which they have done ever since (for reviews, see Colquitt and Greenberg, 2003; Colquitt, Greenberg, and Zapata-Phelan, 2005).
Interactional justice
As organizational scholars were coming to appreciate the importance of procedural justice, Bies and Moag (1986) expanded our thinking about fair procedures from the realm of the structural into the realm of the interpersonal. They built upon procedural justice in the same way that procedural justice built upon distributive justice. Specifically, Bies and Moag (1986) introduced the highly influential notion of interactional justice: that people consider not only the fairness of outcome distributions and the procedures that led to them, but also the manner in which these outcomes and procedures are communicated. People expect to have things explained to them adequately and respectfully and when they believe that this has not occurred they feel that they have been unfairly treated. These feelings, in turn, frequently trigger feelings of moral outrage and righteous indignation (Bies, 2001), sometimes resulting in retaliation against the source of these feelings (Aquino, Tripp, and Bies, 2006). (Some may believe that interactional justice is just a matter of being nice, but this would be misleading. People who believe that the explanations they’ve received are inadequate report feeling injustice. And their responses often reflect this.)
The concept of interactional justice remains popular today (Bies, 2005) for two very practical reasons. First, procedural justice has a major effect on the way people respond to undesirable outcomes and procedures. As I describe later, research has found that high levels of interactional justice mitigate employees’ negative reactions to distributive and/or procedural injustices (e.g. Greenberg, 1990a, 1994, 2006). A second reason for the widespread interest in interactional justice is that practicing managers are in a good position to bring about these beneficial effects by virtue of the way they treat others in the workplace. Although lower-level managers might be able to do very little about the distributions of reward in their organizations and the procedures used to determine them, the capacity to influence workers’ feelings of interactional justice is under their control.
What, then, must managers do to demonstrate high levels of interactional justice? Two factors are key. The first, referred to as interpersonal justice, involves treating people with dignity and respect, showing that they care about the subordinate’s personal feelings and welfare. When people believe that they have been treated in a way lacking in demonstrations of dignity and respect (i.e. when interpersonal justice has been violated), they feel unfairly treated. The second, referred to as informational justice, involves giving people clear and thorough explanations about the procedures used to determine outcomes. When people believe that they have been denied information they believe they should have (i.e. when informational justice has been violated), they feel unfairly treated.
Greenberg (1993a) first identified these two facets of interactional justice based on his post hoc analysis of research on interactional justice to that time. Subsequently, Colquitt (2001) established empirically that interactional justice and interpersonal justice are independent dimensions that are distinct from distributive justice and procedural justice. Although Colquitt (2001) developed separate measures of interpersonal and informational justice, the close conceptual relationship between the two often leads them to be combined in practice. I follow this approach here.
The main principle
The idea of using fair procedures (e.g. giving people voice) and communicating with them in a manner that shows dignity and respect may appear deceptively simple today, but in the 1980s, they represented new approaches to understanding people’s perceptions of fairness in organizations (Greenberg, 1987, 1990b). Since that time, research and theory on procedural justice and interactional justice developed rapidly - so much so, in fact, that the broader umbrella concept under which they fall, organizational justice, is among the most popularly researched topics in OB and related fields (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and Ng, 2001; Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997; Greenberg, 2007).
Based on key findings of the research regarding procedural and interactional justice, it is possible to identify the following principle, which guides this chapter: Using fair procedures (as defined by conceptualizations of procedural justice) and communicating them in a fair manner (i.e. by sharing information in a way that demonstrates dignity and respect) enhances individual and organizational outcomes. Given that people generally embrace the concept of fairness in the workplace, this principle is unlikely to strike many as surprising. However, the many studies that have been conducted in this field reveal that it is actually quite complex and highly nuanced (Greenberg and Colquitt, 2005). I illustrate this here by breaking down this broad principle into two narrower subprinciples and describing research bearing on each.
The studies conducted to date make it possible to identify two distinct subprinciples. The first subprinciple focuses on the effects of procedural justice and the second subprinciple focuses on the effects of interactional justice. My discussion of these will focus on both their organizational and individual effects.
Effects of procedural justice
Consistent with Thibaut and Walker’s (1975) work on voice, research has found that people respond positively to organizational decisions to the extent that they have a say in determining them, even if they cannot control the outcomes directly (Greenberg and Folger, 1983). Research also has supported Leventhal’s (1980) idea that fairness is promoted by adhering to the six earlier-noted procedural rules. In other words, people respond positively to organizational decisions to the extent that they have been made using these criteria (Greenberg, 1986a).
Beneficial organizational effects of procedural justice. Several lines of research illustrate these subprinciples of procedural justice. For example, employees’ attitudes toward their companies’ appraisal systems are correlated positively to their beliefs about the opportunities they have to express their own viewpoints (Dipboye and de Pontbraind, 1981; Lissak, 1983), even when controlling for the outcomes of those systems (Landy, Barnes-Farrell, and Cleveland, 1980). Additional procedural factors, such as giving adequate notice, and basing judgments on sound evidence also enhance employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal systems and the decisions resulting from them (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998; Greenberg, 1986a, 1986b).
Some of the earliest studies of organizational justice (e.g. Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Sweeney and McFarlin 1993) have established that procedural justice is predictive of organizational commitment whereas distributive justice is predictive of job satisfaction (for a review, see Greenberg, 1990b). Sweeney and McFarlin (1993) have referred to this as the “two-factor model,” a term that reflects not only the statistical independence of distributive and procedural justice, but also the system-referenced nature of distributive justice and the person-referenced nature of procedural justice.
Research also has shown that procedural variables similar to those identified by Thibaut and Walker (1975) and by Leventhal (1980) also account for employees’ reactions to other organizational phenomena. For example, Kim and Mauborgne (1993) have noted that employees’ acceptance of their companies’ strategic plans is enhanced to the extent that they are able to engage in bilateral communication and are given an opportunity to refute ideas. Similarly, personnel policies, such as the procedures used to screen employees for drug use (Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1993) and those used to make personnel selection decisions (Gilliland, 1994) are better accepted to the degree that they incorporate various procedural elements, such as accuracy, allowing for corrections, and providing opportunities for voice.
Several recent studies have focused on the association between procedural justice and various forms of extra-role behavior. A meta-analysis, for example, found that organizational citizenship behavior directed at both individuals and organizations (Organ and Ryan, 1995) was predicted strongly by perceptions of procedural justice (Fassina, Jones, and Uggerslev, 2008). Extending this idea to another form of extra-role behavior, Moon, Kamdar, Mayer, and Takeuchi (2008) found that procedural justice was also predictive of “taking charge” - discretionary behavior aimed at bringing positive change to one’s organization , such as by making useful suggestions for innovation (Morrison and Phelps, 1999). Interestingly, employees’ positive perceptions of procedural justice also have been linked to extra-role behaviors aimed at customers. Specifically, hotel workers who believe that their employers follow fair procedures have been found to deliver levels of service to guests that exceed standard role requirements (Moliner, Martinez-Tur, Ramos, Peiro, and Cropanzano, 2008). Together, these findings are consistent with the notion that employees who believe that their organizations have instituted fair procedures attempt to repay them by going above and beyond the call of duty to help them (and, by extrapolation, their customers).
Adverse health effects of procedural injustice. In contrast to the organizational outcomes discussed thus far, another line of research has focused on health risks associated with perceptions of injustice in the workplace. Such research has found that low levels of organizational justice are linked to prolonged negative emotional states, such as stress (Judge and Colquitt, 2004) and pathophysiological changes that are associated with health problems (Elovainio, Kivimäki, Vahtera, Keltikangas-Jjärvinen, and Virtanen, 2003).
Additional research has revealed that the adverse health effects are more negative when multiple sources of injustice are perceived instead of just a single source. Tepper (2001) reported evidence to this effect in a study assessing symptoms of clinical depression among residents of a Midwestern US city. Specifically, he found that participants reporting the highest levels of depression were those who experienced low levels of both procedural justice and distributive justice. Individuals who experience higher levels of either form of justice experienced significantly less depression. More recently, Spell and Arnold (2007) reported analogous findings. Instead of examining individual perceptions of injustice, these researchers studied shared perceptions of justice within work units (to which they refer as organizational justice climate). They found that workers’ levels of depression were lowest when collective perceptions of distributive justice and procedural justice were lowest.
Effects of interactional justice
Greenberg (1990a) illustrated the effects of interactional justice in a study in which he examined theft by employees who felt underpaid due to a pay cut. These workers expressed their dissatisfaction by stealing twice as much from their companies when officials treated them in a vague and uncaring manner while announcing the pay cut (i.e. low interactional justice) as compared to when officials explained the reasoning for the pay cut thoroughly and in a sensitive, dignified, and respectful manner (i.e. high interactional justice) although they received the same exact pay cuts. This illustrates the subprinciple of interactional justice: people better accept organizational outcomes to the extent that they have been treated with high levels of interactional justice in the course of explaining those outcomes. I now describe this principle more closely by discussing studies revealing the adverse effects that follow when people perceive that they are experiencing low levels of interactional justice.
Adverse organizational effects of interactional injustice. The importance of both the interpersonal and informational facets of interactional justice has been demonstrated in several studies. For example, in a lab study, Greenberg (1993b) manipulated informational justice and interpersonal justice independently after paying participants less than expected. Participants were then given an opportunity to retaliate anonymously by taking money back from the researcher. Retaliation was lower when the underpayment was explained using high levels of interpersonal justice and high levels of informational justice. These facets of interactional justice mitigated participants’ beliefs about the unfairness of the same undesirable outcomes, leading them to accept those outcomes and diminishing their motivation to retaliate.
Another study by Greenberg (1994) demonstrated an identical effect in an organization that was about to introduce a smoking ban. This policy change (which is likely to be rejected by smokers) was introduced in a manner that systematically manipulated the amount of information about the need for the smoking ban (i.e. informational justice) as well as the level of sensitivity expressed regarding the difficulty the ban was likely to create for smokers (i.e. interpersonal justice). Employees who smoked expressed greater willingness to go along with the ban when it was thoroughly explained and when it was presented in a socially sensitive manner (i.e. when levels of both interpersonal and informational justice were high).
In yet another setting, Lind, Greenberg, Scott, and Welchans (2000) interviewed almost 1000 unemployed people about their reactions to being fired or laid off from their jobs. They found that individuals who believed they were treated in a dignified manner by company officials in the course of being terminated (high interpersonal justice) and who believed that the explanations they received about the termination decision were adequate (high informational justice) were significantly less inclined to bring suit against their former employers for wrongful termination than those who received more superficial explanations delivered in a less sensitive manner.
Adverse health effects of interactional injustice. Just as procedural injustice appears to take a toll on health, so too does interactional injustice. Indeed, high levels of stress were found to be associated with perceptions of interactional injustice (Judge and Colquitt, 2004). However, just as adverse reactions to procedural injustice are exacerbated when combined with distributive injustice, as noted earlier, so too are adverse reactions to procedural injustice exacerbated when combined with interactional injustice.
This is illustrated in a study of some 5300 Finnish hospital workers whose levels of stress were assessed along with their perceptions of procedural justice and interactional justice (Elovainio, Kivimäki, and Vahtera, 2002). Stress measures consisted of self-reports of physical and psychological health problems as well as the number of days absent from work due to certified medical reasons (a practice that is customary in Finland for absences in excess of three consecutive days). The researchers reported that all three measures of stress reached their highest levels among workers who perceived that they experienced low amounts of both interactional justice and procedural justice on their jobs. Low levels of each form of justice contributed somewhat to the signs of stress measured, but their combined effects were complementary, rather than redundant, in nature. More recently, additional evidence of complementary effects was reported in another study using a very large sample of Finnish workers from a variety of different occupations (Kivimäki, Vahetera, Elovainio, Virtanen, and Siegrist, 2007).
In sum, it’s clear that low levels of interactional justice - both the interpersonal and informational forms - contribute to adverse organizational effects. And when combined with low levels of procedural justice, low levels of interactional justice also take their toll on the physical and mental well-being of employees.
Having described the central principle of procedural and interactional justice and its major subprinciples, I now identify several key qualifying conditions under which these are likely to occur.
Outcome valence
Research has established that procedural justice’s effects on the acceptance of organizational outcomes are qualified by the valence of the outcomes involved (Brockner and Weisenfeld, 1996). Specifically, fair procedures matter more to people when outcomes are negative than when they are positive - an effect known as the outcome × process interaction. Generally, employees receiving positive outcomes tend to be so pleased with what they got that they are unconcerned with how they got it. However, concerns about procedures become salient when outcomes are negative (for a detailed analysis of this effect, see Brockner, 2009). After all, people who don’t receive what they want are likely to ask “why?” and the answers they seek are likely to be framed in terms of the procedures used to determine those outcomes. As I explained elsewhere (Greenberg, 1986b), people may feel that it is inappropriate to express their dissatisfaction with undesirable outcomes for fear of appearing to be “sore losers,” but that it almost always is appropriate to ask questions about “how” outcomes were determined. Indeed, the basis for appealing grades in most universities and the verdicts of court cases is based not on dissatisfaction with the outcomes (although this may be the underlying motive for the appeal), but on the propriety of the procedures used to determine them. And, because procedures hold the key to understanding outcomes, their salience is heightened when outcomes are negative.
Although procedural justice might matter more when outcomes are negative than when positive, this applies to people’s acceptance of organizational outcomes, but not to organizations themselves. Indeed, high levels of procedural justice can have beneficial effects on commitment to the organization in question even when outcomes are positive. For example, Greenberg (1994) found that a smoking ban that was explained fairly had stronger effects on smokers (for whom the impact was negative) than on non-smokers (for whom the impact was positive). However, both smokers and non-smokers expressed high levels of commitment to the organization when it used fair procedures. Apparently, organizations that use fair procedures send strong messages about their underlying commitment to fairness, which enhances employees’ commitment to the organization regardless of the outcomes they receive from it.
The limits of voice
If the granting of voice enhances acceptance of outcomes, then it may be assumed that more voice promotes greater acceptance (see Chapter 24 for a discussion of participation in decision making). However, research suggests that such an assumption is fallacious. Specifically, two studies have shown that the benefits of the magnitude of voice are non-linear. For example, Hunton, Wall, and Price (1998) conducted an experiment in which they manipulated the number of supervisory decisions (0, 5, 10, 15, or 20) over which participants were given voice. Participants expressed greater satisfaction with decisions over which they had any degree of voice than decisions over which they had no voice at all. However, increasing levels of voice (from 5 through 20) had no effects whatsoever. These data suggest that the benefits associated with voice appear to be a simple binary function rather than a matter of degree.
Additional evidence suggests that under some conditions, at least, high levels of voice actually may reduce satisfaction with outcomes. For example, Peterson (1999) measured laboratory subjects’ satisfaction with leaders in situations in which the parties were in conflict with each other over group decision problems. Corroborating earlier studies, Peterson (1999) found that satisfaction was greater among participants who were given an opportunity to explain their suggestions for solving a group problem (moderate voice condition) than those who were not given any such opportunity (no voice condition). However, he also found that when leaders gave participants surprisingly high levels of voice, participants believed that the leader was behaving inappropriately by relinquishing his or her power, and were less satisfied than they were in the moderate voice condition. In other words, Peterson (1999) found that satisfaction had an inverted-U relationship with magnitude of voice.
Because the findings of Hunton et al. (1998) and Peterson (1999) have not been replicated outside the laboratory, it is unclear how generalizable they are to other settings. However, they lead us to be cautious about the limits of the effects of voice that have been described in the literature to date.
Voice and social sensitivity must be sincere
In addition to qualifications regarding the amount of voice given, another qualification of the principle of procedural justice concerns the sincerity of voice. Specifically, granting employees a voice in the making of decisions leads them to believe that their voice will be listened to, enhancing the chances that their opinions will be accepted, even if they are not. Accordingly, employees who believe that the voice they are offered is insincere (such as would be the case if no one is listening to them) will not be satisfied with the resulting outcomes. In fact, insofar as employees’ expectations about the outcomes first are raised, but later are dashed when confronted with a less positive reality, they may be more dissatisfied than they would be if their expectations were never raised in the first place - a phenomenon called the “frustration effect” (Greenberg and Folger, 1983). Not surprisingly, the practice of falsely creating the illusion of voice in the workplace is considered unwise insofar as it may backfire, leading employees to reject not only the outcomes, but the organization itself (Greenberg, 1990b).
The negative effects of insincerity also may be seen in the case of explanations for undesirable organizational outcomes. In other words, for perceptions of informational justice to be enhanced by the issuing of explanations for outcomes, it is necessary for those explanations to be not only accurate and thorough, but also to be perceived as genuine and sincere (Shapiro, Buttner, and Barry, 1994). Should employees suspect that the explanations they are receiving about outcomes are insincere - or worse, manipulative - the benefits of providing explanations are negated. In fact, under such circumstances, the organizational agent’s manipulative intent is likely to reflect negatively on impressions of the organization itself, making matters worse (Greenberg, 1990b). In other words, unless employees are convinced that their superiors are “being straight” with them, the use of explanations is likely to backfire.
Having established what can be done to promote procedural justice in the workplace and the benefits of doing so, I now turn to the matter of implementation. In other words, we may ask if people actually do seek to establish procedural justice in organizations, and if so, how they go about doing so. I now will address these questions.
Training managers in procedural justice and interactional justice
Acknowledging that it is in their own best interest for managers to follow the principles of procedural and interactional justice outlined here, officials from several companies have allowed researchers to train supervisory personnel in ways of enhancing these forms justice. The effectiveness of these training efforts has been documented in the literature (for a review, see Skarlicki and Latham, 2005).
For example, Cole and Latham (1997) trained 71 unionized Canadian supervisors on six key aspects of procedural justice whose relevance to disciplinary settings had been established earlier (Ball, 1991): (1) an explanation of the performance problem, (2) the demeanor of the supervisor, (3) subordinates’ control over the process, (4) arbitrariness, (5) employee counseling, and (6) privacy. The training consisted of role-playing exercises conducted in small groups held over five half-days. To assess the effectiveness of the training, two groups of expert judges evaluated the behavior of the supervisors who role-played supervisors administering discipline in various test scenarios. Not only did the judges agree that managers who were trained behaved more fairly than those in an untrained, control group, but they also predicted that the trained group would perform better as supervisors than the control group. Although Cole and Latham’s (1997) findings do not assess the effectiveness of training on the job, they suggest that managers can be trained to emulate specific behaviors that enhance procedural justice.
However, two additional studies have shown that managers trained in various aspects of procedural justice do, in fact, behave in ways that yield beneficial organizational results. For example, Skarlicki and Latham (1996) trained managers in various aspects of procedural justice in an effort to enhance the level of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) among a group of union laborers. The managers were trained on various determinants of procedural justice, including ways of providing voice, and techniques for facilitating the fairness of the social interaction between labor and management. Training consisted of lectures, case studies, role-playing exercises, and group discussions conducted in four three-hour sessions held over a three-week period. Three months after training, incidents of OCB were found to be higher among employees of the trained managers than the untrained ones, suggesting that OCB can be enhanced directly by training managers to behave fairly toward their employees.
More recently, Greenberg (2006) reported successfully training supervisors in ways of promoting interactional justice among their subordinates. In this study, nurses from four hospitals completed a scale indicating the extent to which they suffered symptoms of insomnia. Nurses in two of these hospitals experienced a cut in pay (resulting from a change in pay policy) whereas the pay of nurses in the other two hospitals was unchanged. The researcher trained nursing supervisors in one of the hospitals in each group in ways of promoting interactional justice among their subordinates but not the remaining hospitals (until after the study was over). The training consisted of two half-day sessions in which cases, role-playing exercises, and mini-lectures were used to train supervisors in three key skills associated with interpersonal justice (treating others with dignity and respect, demonstrating emotional support, and avoiding intimidation) and three key skills associated with informational justice (providing complete and accurate explanations, communicating details in a timely manner, and being assessable to others).
Reflecting the stressful nature of underpayment, insomnia was significantly greater among nurses whose pay was reduced than among those whose pay remained unchanged. However, the degree of insomnia was significantly lower among nurses whose supervisors were trained in interactional justice, when measured both immediately after training and again six months later. These findings demonstrate the buffering effects of interactionally fair treatment on reactions to underpayment. The study also establishes that the training technique was effective in this regard.
Taken together, these studies reveal that managers may be trained effectively in techniques for enhancing procedural justice and that such training is effective in improving various aspects of organizational functioning. Unfortunately, we cannot determine how long lasting the benefits may be. Also, because there have been so few investigations in this area, we do not know precisely what forms of training are most effective at improving specific dependent variables. Despite these uncertainties, it appears that the benefits of systematically attempting to promote procedural justice in organizations are very promising.
The principles described here may be illustrated by cases demonstrating both the benefits that result from promoting procedural justice and/or interactional justice and the consequences of violating them.
New York City taxi drivers strike: the importance of voice
On May 12, 1998, most of New York City’s 44,000 taxi drivers staged a one-day strike that all but paralyzed commuting within the USA’s largest city (Allen, 1998). The action was in response to the imposition of new safety rules by the mayor at the time, Rudolph W. Giuliani. Among other things, the mayor required drivers to take a defensive driving class, raised the fines for smoking in a cab, and revoked drivers’ taxi licenses for being convicted of too many moving violations. Most drivers did not oppose these rules. However, they were very threatened by the unilateral manner in which the mayor imposed them. Specifically a union official representing several thousand drivers explained that they favored the regulations, but were opposed to the mayor’s disregard for the drivers by not consulting them on this matter.
Therein lies the problem. Because Mayor Giuliani failed to consult the drivers or seek their input in any way (i.e. denying them voice), they felt that they were unfairly treated. This led them to protest as they did, souring relations between cab drivers and city officials. Ironically, insofar as most drivers believed the mayor’s plan was reasonable, the protest could have been avoided by simply consulting with the drivers beforehand. By not doing so, he demonstrated a level of arrogance and disrespect to which the drivers responded. Interestingly, only 40 months later, Mayor Giuliani was praised for the high level of compassion he demonstrated in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on his city. Might it be that his honor learned a lesson about interactional justice?
The new store manager: from injustice to justice
For many years, the manager of a large non-union supermarket in an affluent suburb of a large city, Mr. X, struggled to keep his employees. Turnover, already high in retail stores, was almost three times higher than the national average in this particular store. It was not unusual for some employees, mostly college students working part-time, to quit in their first week.
Several newly resigned workers consented to exit interviews by phone. In almost all cases, Mr. X was implicated as their primary reason for leaving. Some comments about Mr. X were particularly eye-opening. When making work assignments, he never asked anyone - except his friends - for their preferences and he never explained his decisions. He even punished his least favorite employees by giving them shifts he knew they didn’t want. Almost none of his decisions were based on seniority or job performance, just personal bias. On top of all this, he was always rude and inconsiderate, calling people unflattering names and berating them in front of others.
No tears were shed when Mr. X was terminated after about two-and-a-half years. His replacement, Mr. A, could not have been more different. When it came time to make work schedules, he asked the crew for their preferences and did his best to accommodate them. When he couldn’t, which was not unusual, he explained why by pointing to the rule he used to guide him. This rule gave higher priority to workers based on their seniority and their job performance and it was completely transparent. He showed no favoritism. If someone had a special occasion, such as a wedding, Mr. A checked with everyone to see if they wouldn’t mind giving that individual higher scheduling priority than usual. So long as it wasn’t abused, everyone went along with it, believing that they too would be able to get what they wanted when a need arose.
This is only one thing Mr. A did that came as a pleasant surprise to the store’s employees. He also treated employees in ways that not only were much better than they were used to under Mr. X, but also much better than they had experienced in other jobs. He always smiled at the employees and asked them how they’re doing. He took out time to talk to them and to make them feel like they really matter. The employees opened up to him and treated him as well as he treated them. Respect and trust was high and mutual.
After 10 months under Mr. A, turnover dropped to almost zero. Two people had to leave because they transferred schools and one left because she graduated and took a full-time job in another city. During goodbye parties for them, these people all expressed their sorrow at having to leave. Not only was turnover low at the store, but the good reputation Mr. A developed led to a stack of employees who wanted to work there. No recruiting or training problems for the store meant considerable savings, helping the store become more profitable. Today, the employees’ only fear is that after Mr. A’s successes come to the attention of officials at the chain’s headquarters he will be promoted and leave them.
CONCLUSION
The research and cases reviewed here suggest that both procedural justice and interactional justice have beneficial effects on both individuals and organizations. Although policies may keep some managers from doing everything possible to promote procedural justice and interactional justice, it’s likely that many managers will, in fact, have opportunities to promote fairness by doing several of the things described here. It’s something managers can do. And, given the established benefits of promoting procedural justice and interactional justice, the effort required to do so would appear to be well worthwhile.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology ( Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
Alexander, S., and Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198.
Allen, M. (1998). Giuliani threatens action if cabbies fail to cancel a protest. New York Times, May 15, p. C1.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., and Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653-658.
Ball, G. A. (1991). Outcomes of punishment incidents: the role of subordinate perceptions, individual differences, and leader behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano (eds), Advances in Organizational Justice (pp. 89-118). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt (eds), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 85-112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bies, R. J., and Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, and M. Bazerman (eds), Research on Negotiation in Organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brockner, J. (2009). Multiplying Insult Times Injury: The Interactive Relationships between Outcomes and Processes. New York: Psychology Press.
Brockner, J., and Weisenfeld, B. M. (1996). The interactive impact of procedural and outcome fairness on reactions to a decision: The effects of what you do depend on how you do it. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.
Cole, N. D., and Latham, G. P. (1997). Effects of training in procedural justice on perceptions of disciplinary fairness by unionized employees and disciplinary subject matter experts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 699-705.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., and Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Colquitt, J. A., and Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state of the literature. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science (2nd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., and Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? An historical overview of the field. In J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt (eds), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 3-56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cropanzano, R., and Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 317-372). London: Wiley.
Dipboye, R. L., and de Pontbraind, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 248-251.
Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., and Vahtera, J. (2002). Organizational justice: Evidence of a new psychosocial predictor of health. American Journal of Public Health, 92(11), 105-108.
Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., Vahtera, J., Keltikangas-Jjärvinen, L., and Virtanen, M. (2003). Sleeping problems and health behaviors as mediators between organizational justice and health. Health Psychology, 22, 287-293.
Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., and Uggerslev, K. L. (2008). Meta-analytic tests of relationships between organizational justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and shared-variance models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 805-828.
Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes between workers and their superiors, co-workers and subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 147-162.
Folger, R., and Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Folger, R., and Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In K. Rowland and G. Ferris (eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 3, pp. 141-183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Folger, R., and Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
Gilliland, S. W. (1994). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694-734.
Greenberg, J. (1982). Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations. In J. Greenberg and R. L. Cohen (eds), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior (pp. 389-435). New York: Academic Press.
Greenberg, J. (1986a). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340-342.
Greenberg, J. (1986b). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair? In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, and M. H. Bazerman (eds), Research on Negotiation in Organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 25-41). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-22.
Greenberg, J. (1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden costs of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61.
Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.
Greenberg, J. (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: Erlbaum.
Greenberg, J. (1993b). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81-103.
Greenberg, J. (1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 288-297.
Greenberg, J. (1996). The Quest for Justice on the Job. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing sleep over organizational injustice: Attenuating insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 58-69.
Greenberg, J. (2007). Ten good reasons why everyone needs to know about and study organizational justice. In I. Glendon, B. Myors , and B. Thompson (eds), Advances in Organizational Psychology: An Asia-Pacific Perspective (pp. 181-297). Bowen Hills, Queensland, Australia: Australian Academic Press.
Greenberg, J., and Colquitt, J. A. (2005). Handbook of Organizational Justice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Greenberg, J., and Folger, R. (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.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt.
Hunton, J. E., Wall, T. W., and Price, K. H. (1998). The value of voice in participative decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 788-797.
Judge, T. A., and Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 395-404.
Kim, W. C, and Mauborgne, R. A. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary management compliance with multinationals’ corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 502-526.
Kivimäki, M., Vahetera, J., Elovainio, M., Virtanen, M., and Siegrist, J. (2007). Effort- reward imbalance, procedural injustice and relational injustice as psychosocial predictors of health: complementary or redundant models? Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 64, 428-434.
Konovsky, M. A., and Cropanzano, R. (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: Erlbaum.
Landy, F. J., Barnes-Farrell, J., and Cleveland, J. (1980). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 355-356.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, and R. H. Willis (eds), Social Exchanges: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., and Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (ed.), Justice and Social Interaction (pp. 167-218). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lind, E. A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K. S., and Welchans, T. D. (2000). The winding road from employee to complainant: Situational and psychological determinants of wrongful termination lawsuits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 557-590.
Lind, E. A., and Kulik, C. T. (2009). Hear me out: voice and justice. In J. Greenberg and M. S. Edwards (eds), Voice and Silence in Organizations (pp. 135-156). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Lissak, R. I. (1983). Procedural fairness: How employees evaluate procedures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Moliner, C., Martinez-Tur, V., Ramos, J., Peiro, H. M., and Cropanzano, R. (2008). Organizational justice and extra role customer service: The mediating role of well-being at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 327-348.
Moon, H., Kamdar, D., Mayer, D. M., and Takeuchi, R. (2008). Me or we? The role of personality and justice as other-centered antecedents to innovative citizenship behavior within organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 84-94.
Morrison, E. W., and Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extra role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-419.
Mowday, R. T., and Colwell, K. A. (2003). Employee reactions to unfair outcomes in the workplace: The contributions of Adams’ equity theory to understanding work motivation. In L. Porter, G. Bigley, and R. Steers (eds). Motivation and Work Behavior (pp. 222-245). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Organ, D. W., and Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.
Peterson, R. S. (1999). Can you have too much of a good thing? The limits of voice for improving satisfaction with leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 313-324.
Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, H. B., and Barry, B. (1994). Explanations: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 346-368.
Skarlicki, D. P., and Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: a test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 161-169.
Skarlicki, D. P., and Latham, G. P. (2005). How can training be used to foster organizational justice? In J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt (eds), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 499-522). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spell, C. S., and Arnold, T. J. (2007). A multi-level analysis of organizational justice: Climate, structure, and employee mental health. Journal of Management, 33, 724-751.
Sturman, T. S., and Thibodeau, R. (2001). Performance-undermining effects of baseball free agent contracts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23, 23-36.
Sweeney, D. P., and McFarlin, D. P. (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.
Tepper, B. J. (2001). Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests of main and interactive effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 197-215.
Thibaut, J., and Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R., and Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 642-655.
Unjust treatment
Recall in as much detail as possible a recent occasion on the job when you felt that a superior treated you in an especially unfair manner. Jot down the details so you can keep them straight in your mind when you answer the following questions about this experience.
1. Exactly what happened and how did you and other people involved in this incident respond?
2. What could have been done to avoid the injustice in this situation?
3. What particular forms of justice - distributive, procedural and/or interactional - were violated in this incident? Explain your reasons for this.
4. How did this incident make you feel?
A manager’s problem
Imagine that you are the new manager of a team of software engineers in your department at a software development firm. You’ve been on the job for only two months, and things are not going well. Several of your most talented engineers have left the company and you hear grumblings that others are looking to leave as well. Morale is low and people are struggling to maintain the increased workload caused by the departure of their former colleagues. After mustering the courage to approach you, one of the engineers confessed that you are the problem: People think you’ve been treating them unfairly. This came as a shock to you, leaving you with lots of questions, but she didn’t offer any details because she feared they might embarrass those who are implicated. As a result, you are now left ruminating about this situation.
1. Potentially, what might you have done to lead people to think of you as unfair? For each of these things, what specific changes in the company and/or your own behavior might you attempt to change so as to avoid these problems in the future?
2. In addition to people leaving the company, what other signs might you find to indicate that people are experiencing injustice?
3. Do you think that interactional justice training would help address this situation? If so, why. If not, why not?