A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
? Academy of Management Review, 1987, Vol. 12, No. 1, 9-22. A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories JERALDGREENBERG Ohio State University A taxonomy is presented that categorizes theories of organizational justice with respect to two independent dimensions: a reactive- proactive dimension and a process-content dimension. Various theo- ries within each of the four resulting categories are identified. The implications of the taxonomy are discussed with respect to clarifying theoretical interrelationships, tracking research trends, and identify- ing needed areas of research. Stimulated by conceptualizations of justice in of such newer approaches and because these organizations by such theorists as Homans (1961), may be less familiar to organizational scientists, Adams (1965), and Walster, Berscheid, and Wal- the present paper will categorize various con- ster (1973), organizational researchers devoted ceptualizations of justice around a taxonomic considerable attention in the 1960s and 1970s to scheme. This taxonomy will not only offer a par- testing propositions about the distribution of pay- simonious way of organizing these various con- ment and other work-related rewards derived ceptualizations, but in so doing, will highlight from equity theory (for reviews, see Campbell & their interrelationships and their importance to Pritchard, 1976; Greenberg, 1982). Although the study of organizations. reviews and critiques of equity theory once domi- nated the pages of organizational journals (e.g., Dimensions of the Taxonomy Goodman & Friedman, 1971; Pritchard, 1969; Weick, 1966), more recently it has been the sub- The present taxonomy is derived by combin- ject of far less attention (Reis, 1986). It would be ing two conceptually independent dimensions: a mistake, however, to view this trend as an a reactive-proactive dimension and a process- indication that organizational scientists are less content dimension. It is not assumed that these interested in matters of justice and fairness in are the only organizing dimensions that may be organizations than they used to be. Indeed, con- identified. Indeed, it is possible that different tax- cerns about fairness have been expressed in such onomic schemes may be proposed that are based organizational domains as conflict resolution on completely different conceptual dimensions. (Aram & Salipante, 1981), personnel selection However, the dimensions identified in the pres- (Arvey, 1979), labor disputes (Walton & McKersie, ent taxonomy appear to be very useful ones for 1965), and wage negotiation (Mahoney, 1975), to organizing a wide range of conceptualizations name just a few. Although research inspired by of interest in the field of organizational behavior. equity theory has slowed down greatly, there have emerged a variety of different approaches Reactive-Proactive Dimension to justice that are at least as useful in explaining The reactive-proactive dimension was sug- behavior in a broader variety of organizational gested by a distinction made by Van Avermaet, contexts. Because there has been a proliferation McClintock, and Moskowitz (1978), and was used 9 to organize the equity theory literature by Green- Two points must be made regarding the theo- berg (1982). The distinction is between seeking to ries in this taxonomy. First, no attempt has been redress injustice and striving to attain justice. made to be exhaustive. Instead, the theories iden- A reactive theory of justice focuses on people's tified and described are ones that are either well- attempts either to escape from or to avoid per- established or promising ones within psychol- ceived unfair states. Such theories examine reac- ogy or sociology, fields within which the study of tions to injustices. By contrast, proactive theories justice in organizations traditionally has been focus on behaviors designed to promote justice. rooted. Limiting the examples does not imply that They examine behaviors attempting to create just other theories would not fit in. Rather, in view of states. the clarifying function of the present work, ex- cluding them is more reflective of a judgment Process-Content Dimension regarding the limitations of their demonstrated The second dimension, the process-content or potential value for organizational study. dimension, was inspired by legal research dis- Second, although some of the theories classi- tinguishing between the way verdicts are derived fied by the present taxonomy have been widely and what those verdicts are (Walker, Lind, & applied to organizational contexts, none were Thibaut, 1979). Mahoney (1983) made a similar formulated with organizations in mind as their distinction by differentiating between the pro- exclusive focus. Even Adams's (1965) popular the- cesses by which wages are determined and the ory of inequity, originally tested in work settings, outcome of those processes. As such, we may has been described as a general theory of social distinguish between approaches to justice that behavior (Walster et al., 1973). Other theories focus on the ends achieved and the means used presented here originated within the legal milieu to acquire those ends. (e.g., Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Nonetheless, A process approach to justice focuses on how because the theories have been, or are now various outcomes (in organizations, pay and rec- being used to explain organizational behavior, ognition are good examples) are determined. they will be referred to collectively as theories of Such orientations focus on the fairness of the pro- organizational justice. cedures used to make organizational decisions and to implement those decisions. In contrast, content approaches concern themselves with the Table 1 fairness of the resulting distribution of outcomes. Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories These perspectives address the relative fairness with Corresponding Predominant Exemplars of the outcomes received by various organiza- tional units (typically either individuals or groups). Reactive- Content-Process Dimension Proactive Identifying Theories Dimension Content Process Within the Taxonomy Reactive Content Reactive Process It is assumed that the reactive-proactive dimen- Reactive Equity theory Procedural justice sion and the process-content dimension are inde- (Adams, 1965) theory (Thibaut pendent of each other, thereby yielding four dis- & Walker, 1975) tinct classes of justice conceptualizations when Proactive Content Proactive Process the two dimensions are combined. Table 1 organ- Proactive Justice judgment Allocation preference izes these approaches and identifies a primary theory (Leventhal theory (Leventhal, (1976a, 1980) Karuza, & Fry, 1980) exemplar of each. 10 Reactive Content Theories ers perceiving an inequitable state may react behaviorally by altering their performance Reactive content theories are conceptual ap- levels, and/or cognitively by attempting to justify proaches to justice that focus on how individuals the outcomes received (Walster et al., 1978). respond to unfair treatment. Organizational sci- entists are probably most familiar with this class It was, no doubt, because the theoretical met- of justice theory because most popular conceptu- rics were so explicitly suited to work-related alizations of justice in organizations fall within exchanges that equity theory became so popu- this category. Included among these theories are larly applied to organizational research. Indeed, Homans's (1961) theory of distributive justice, and it was within simulated work settings that most Adams's (1965) and Walster et al.'s (1973) ver- of the research on equity theory was conducted sions of equity theory (see also Walster, Walster, (e.g., Lawler & O'Gara, 1967; Pritchard, Dun- & Berscheid, 1978). Despite several differences nette, & Jorgenson, 1972). In the prototypical test in the specifics of their formulation (see Cohen & of equity theory, the experimenter manipulated Greenberg, 1982), these theories share an impor- inequity by leading worker-subjects to believe tant common orientation in explicitly stating that that the basis for their payment was unfair- people will respond to unfair relationships by thereby creating either "underpayment inequity" displaying certain negative emotions, which they or "overpayment inequity." For example, this will be motivated to escape by acting so as to may have included: (a) leading subjects to be- redress the experienced inequity. It is this aspect lieve that an error occurred that caused them to of the theories that qualifies them as reactive receive the same wage as their more qualified content theories: They focus on how people react co-workers, thereby manipulating overpayment to unfair distributions of rewards and resources. (e.g., Adams & Rosenbaum, 1962), or (b) allow- Conceptually rooted in the tradition of balance ing subjects to discover through conversations theories popular in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., with co-workers that they were equally qualified Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1958) these approaches but unequally paid (e.g., Garland, 1973). to justice conceptualized "equitable," or "distri- Typically, performance on some work task- butively just" relations as ones in which there popularly a proofreading task for which quan- was an equal balance between the ratio of a tity and quality measures could be taken-con- person's contributions and his or her outcomes. stituted the dependent variable. According to Unequal balances, such as those that existed equity theory, underpaid workers should be less whenever workers were either overpaid