C H A P T E R 16 Organizational Justice

Jason A. Colquitt

Abstract This chapter frames the development of the justice literature around three literature-level trends: differentiation, cognition, and exogeneity. The differentiation trend has impacted how justice is conceptualized, with additional justice dimensions being further segmented into different sources. The cognition trend has created a rational, calculative theme to the most visible justice theories. The exogeneity trend has resulted in justice occupying the independent variable position in most empirical studies. Taken together, these trends have resulted in a vibrant and active literature. However, I will argue that the next phase of the literature’s evolution will benefit from a relaxation—or even reversal—of these trends. Path-breaking contributions may be more likely to result from the aggregation of justice concepts, a focus on affect, and the identification of predictors of justice. Keywords: Justice, fairness, attitudes, cognition, emotion

Introduction In the early years of the literature, justice scholars For some four decades, scholars interested in focused solely on the fairness of decision outcomes, justice have been examining individuals’ reactions termed distributive justice. Drawing on earlier work to decisions, procedures, and relevant authorities by Homans (1961), Adams (1965) showed that (for a historical review, see Colquitt, Greenberg, & individuals react to outcome allocations by compar- Zapata-Phelan, 2005). One of the central themes of ing their ratio of outcomes to inputs to some rel- this research is that individuals do not merely react evant comparison other. If those ratios match, the to events by asking “Was that good?” or “Was that individual feels a sense of equity. Although equity is satisfying?” Instead, they also ask “Was that fair?” typically viewed as the most appropriate allocation Hundreds of studies have shown that perceptions norm in organizations, theorizing suggests that other of fairness are distinct from feelings of outcome norms can be viewed as fair in some situations. For favorability or outcome satisfaction (Cohen-Charash example, allocating outcomes according to equality & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and need norms are perceived to be fair when group & Ng, 2001; Skitka, Winquist, & Hutchinson, harmony or personal welfare are the relevant goals 2003). Many of those same studies have further (Deutsch, 1975; Leventhal, 1976). Integrating these shown that fairness perceptions explain unique perspectives, distributive justice has been def ned as variance in key attitudes and behaviors, including the degree to which the appropriate allocation norm organizational commitment, trust in management, is followed in a given decision-making context. citizenship behavior, counterproductive behavior, Working at the intersection of social psychology and task performance (Cohen-Charash & Spector, and law, T ibaut and Walker (1975) conducted a 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001). series of studies on the fairness of decision-making

1 processes, termed procedural justice. T e authors conceptualized and measured, with specif c justice recognized that the disputants in legal proceed- dimensions being further segmented into dif erent ings judge both the fairness of the verdict and the sources or “foci.” T e trend toward cognition has fairness of the courtroom procedures. T ibaut and created a rational, calculative theme in many of the Walker (1975) argued that procedures were viewed most visible theories in the justice literature. Finally, as fair when disputants possessed process control, the trend toward exogeneity has resulted in justice meaning that they could voice their concerns in an occupying the independent variable position in ef ort to inf uence the decision outcome. A separate most empirical studies, resulting in an emphasis on stream of work by Leventhal (1980) broadened the its predictive validity. Taken together, these trends conceptualization of procedural justice in the con- have inf uenced the typical study in the justice lit- text of resource allocation decisions. Specif cally, erature in a number of ways, including its research Leventhal (1980) argued that allocation procedures question, its conceptual lens, and its methods and would be viewed as fair when they adhered to sev- procedures. eral “rules,” including consistency, bias suppression, T e sections to follow will review each of these accuracy, correctability, and ethicality. trends in some detail, focusing on the key articles While examining fairness in a recruitment con- that helped to trigger and shape those trends. text, Bies and Moag (1986) observed that decision Perhaps more importantly, the sections will explore events actually have three facets: a decision, a proce- the following premise: that the “next steps” in the dure, and an interpersonal interaction during which development of the justice literature would ben- that procedure is implemented. T e authors used the ef t from a reversal, or at least a stemming, of the term interactional justice to capture the fairness of trends that have dominated the literature. Although that interpersonal interaction. T ey further argued Greenberg (2007) argued that there are still many that interactional justice was fostered when relevant “conceptual parking spaces” available to study in the authorities communicated procedural details in a justice literature, progress in mature f elds inevitably respectful and proper manner, and justif ed deci- takes on a more incremental and nuanced nature. sions using honest and truthful information. In a Studies that strive for a more signif cant impact may subsequent chapter, Greenberg (1993b) argued that need to “go against the grain” of the literature to the respect and propriety rules are distinct from the examine research questions in a novel and innova- justif cation and truthfulness rules, labeling the for- tive manner. With that in mind, this chapter will mer criteria interpersonal justice and the latter crite- explore the merits of the obverses of the three lit- ria informational justice. erature forces: a trend toward aggregation of justice Adopting an umbrella term f rst coined by concepts, a trend toward af ect in justice theorizing, Greenberg (1987), the dimensions reviewed above and a trend toward endogeneity in causal models. have come to def ne the “organizational justice” landscape. In a series of reviews, Greenberg charted Trend One: Diff erentiation the development of the organizational justice lit- Many of the earliest studies on justice in the erature from its intellectual adolescence to its status mainstream organizational behavior and industrial/ as a more adult literature (Colquitt & Greenberg, organizational psychology literature were focused 2003; Greenberg, 1990b; Greenberg, 1993a). T at on dif erentiating procedural justice from distribu- maturation saw articles on organizational justice tive justice. For example, Greenberg (1986) asked gain an ever-expanding presence in academic jour- managers to think of a time when they received a nals, scholarly book series, and conference programs particularly fair or unfair performance evaluation in organizational behavior and industrial/organiza- rating, and to write down the single most important tional (I/O) psychology. Indeed, the top ten jour- factor that contributed to that fairness level. After nals in organizational behavior included 50 or more the responses were typed on a set of index cards, articles on organizational justice in 2001, 2003, and another set of managers participated in a Q-sort in 2006—up from single digits throughout the 1980s which shared responses were identif ed and f t into (Colquitt, 2008). categories. After the categories were cross-validated, T e current review will argue that the develop- another sample of managers were given a survey that ment of the organizational justice literature has included the categories and were asked to rate how been shaped by three major trends: dif erentiation, important they were as determinants of fair perfor- cognition, and exogeneity. T e trend toward dif er- mance evaluations. Importantly, a factor analysis entiation has impacted the ways in which justice is of those ratings resulted in a two-factor solution

2 Organizational Justice with procedural factors (e.g., consistent application revised conceptualization of interactional justice— of standards, soliciting input, ability to challenge def ning the construct in terms that went beyond evaluation) loading separately from distributive respect, propriety, truthfulness, and justif cation to factors (e.g., rating based on performance, recom- include manager-originating versions of Leventhal’s mendation for raise or promotion). Importantly, rules (Folger & Bies, 1989; Greenberg, Bies, & the procedural factors were similar to the rules that Eskew, 1991; Tyler & Bies, 1990). T ibaut and Walker (1975) and Leventhal (1980) Moorman’s (1991) results showed that interac- had identif ed in their theorizing. tional justice was distinct from procedural justice Once evidence had been established that proce- in a conf rmatory factor analysis. It was also distinct dural justice and distributive justice could be dif- from a measure of distributive justice taken from ferentiated in Q-sorts and factor analyses, scholars Price and Mueller’s (1986) work. From a predic- began examining whether the two constructs varied tive validity perspective, the results also showed in their predictive validity. Folger and Konovsky that interactional justice was a better predictor of (1989) gave employees in a manufacturing plant citizenship behaviors than either procedural or dis- a survey about their most recent salary increase. tributive justice. Moorman’s (1991) study had a last- Twenty-six survey items were written to assess pro- ing impact on the justice literature in two respects. cedural justice, including Leventhal’s (1980) rules, First, it helped to establish citizenship behavior as T ibaut and Walker’s (1975) concepts, and—in the most common behavioral outcome in the jus- a foreshadowing of a looming debate in the tice literature (for a review, see Moorman & Byrne, literature—Bies and Moag’s (1986) concepts. T ese 2005). Second, it introduced one of the most com- 26 items wound up loading on f ve factors, four of monly used measures in the literature, reducing the which were retained in the analyses. Another four tendency for scholars to construct ad hoc measures items were included to assess distributive justice and in a given study. outcome favorability, and the survey also included Although Moorman’s (1991) measure brought measures of organizational commitment, trust in an increased amount of attention to interactional supervisor, and pay satisfaction. Regression analyses justice, the remainder of the decade was character- revealed that the procedural justice variables were ized by a debate about whether that justice form stronger predictors of organizational commitment could truly be dif erentiated from procedural jus- and trust in supervisor, whereas the distributive jus- tice. T e chapters that had reconceptualized the new tice and outcome favorability variables were stronger justice form seemed to suggest—either explicitly or predictors of pay satisfaction. T is pattern—where implicitly—that interactional justice was merely a procedural justice was a stronger predictor of manager-originating version of procedural justice system-referenced attitudes and distributive justice (Folger & Bies, 1989; Greenberg et al., 1991; Tyler was a stronger predictor of outcome-referenced & Bies, 1990). Moreover, the fact that Moorman’s attitudes—came to be termed the two-factor model (1991) interactional justice scale included concepts (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993; see also McFarlin & from T ibaut and Walker’s (1975) and Leventhal’s Sweeney, 1992). (1980) theorizing seemed to result in inf ated cor- After the publication of Bies and Moag (1986) relations between interactional and procedural jus- and some initial studies on the interactional jus- tice. As a result, scholars who utilized Moorman’s tice construct (e.g., Bies & Shapiro, 1988), justice (1991) scale sometimes wound up combining the scholars turned their attention to dif erentiating interactional and procedural dimensions due to interactional justice from procedural and distribu- high intercorrelations (e.g., Mansour-Cole & Scott, tive justice. In a study of citizenship behavior in 1998; Skarlicki & Latham, 1997). the paint and coatings industry, Moorman (1991) In an attempt to clarify these issues, Colquitt created a 13-item measure that included proce- (2001) validated a new justice measure whose dural and interactional justice dimensions. Whereas items were based on more literal interpretations of Folger and Konovsky (1989) had included “proce- T ibaut and Walker (1975), Leventhal (1980), and dural justice” items that tapped Bies and Moag’s Bies and Moag (1986). T us, the interactional items (1986) concepts, Moorman included “interactional assessed respect, propriety, truthfulness, and justi- justice” items that tapped Leventhal’s (1980) and f cation, not procedural concepts such as process T ibaut and Walker’s (1975) rules (e.g., bias sup- control or consideration. Drawing on Greenberg’s pression, process control). Such items were actually (1993b) earlier conceptual work, Colquitt (2001) consistent with chapters that provided a somewhat also examined the merits of further dif erentiating

Colquitt 3 interactional justice into interpersonal (respect and whereas Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) utilized the propriety) and informational (truthfulness and jus- terms organizational justice versus supervisory justice. tif cation) facets. Conf rmatory factor analyses in T e distinction between justice “foci” (to uti- two independent samples showed that a four-factor lize Rupp and Cropanzano’s (2002) terminol- structure f t the data signif cantly better than one-, ogy) serves to complement one of the dominant two-, or three-factor versions. In addition, struc- theoretical lenses in the literature: social exchange tural equation modeling results revealed that the theory (Blau, 1964). T is theory suggests that sup- four justice dimensions had unique relationships portive behaviors by an authority can be viewed with various outcome measures. as a benef t to an employee that should trigger At its core, the dif erentiation of interpersonal an obligation to reciprocate. T at obligation to and informational justice acknowledges that the reciprocate can then be expressed through positive politeness and respectfulness of communication is discretionary behaviors. As applied in the justice distinct from its honesty and truthfulness. Indeed, literature, this core theoretical premise can be used that dif erentiation is not at all controversial in to explain f ndings such as the positive relation- the literature on explanations and causal accounts, ship between justice perceptions and citizenship where scholars routinely separate the sensitivity of behavior (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, an account from the truthfulness or comprehensive- 2000; Organ, 1990). Dif erentiating organization ness of its content (e.g., Bobocel, Agar, & Meyer, and manager-originating justice can allow schol- 1998; Gilliland & Beckstein, 1996; Greenberg, ars to examine this exchange dynamic with more 1993c). Several of the studies that have utilized nuance (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007). For Colquitt’s (2001) scales have provided factor-ana- example, organization-originating justice should lytic support for the interpersonal-informational be a stronger predictor of organization-directed distinction (e.g., Ambrose, Hess, & Ganesan, 2007; citizenship (e.g., attending optional meetings). In Bell, Wiechmann, & Ryan, 2006; Camerman, contrast, supervisor-originating justice should be Cropanzano, & Vandenberghe, 2007; Choi, 2008; a stronger predictor of supervisor-directed citizen- Jawahar, 2007; Judge & Colquitt, 2004; Mayer, ship (e.g., helping one’s supervisor with a heavy Nishii, Schneider, & Goldstein, 2007; Scott, workload). Colquitt, & Zapata-Phelan, 2007; Streicher et al., T ese sorts of propositions have been tested in 2008). Of course, several other studies have included three studies, beginning with Rupp and Cropanzano only one of the interactional facets, depending on (2002) and continuing in Liao and Rupp (2005) which is most relevant to the research question. and Horvath and Andrews (2007). Support for the For example, Roberson and Stewart’s (2006) study propositions can be examined by contrasting the of the motivational ef ects of feedback focused on size of “focus matching” correlations (e.g., super- informational justice but not interpersonal justice. visor-originating procedural justice and supervi- As another example, Judge, Scott, and Ilies’s (2006) sor-directed citizenship, organization-originating study of hostility and deviance focused on interper- procedural justice and organization-directed citi- sonal justice but not informational justice. zenship) with their non-matching analogs. Rupp Even as the organizational justice dimensions and Cropanzano (2002) and Horvath and Andrews were being dif erentiated into three and then four (2007) examined procedural and interpersonal jus- dimensions, scholars were drawing additional dis- tice, whereas Liao and Rupp (2005) included pro- tinctions. For example, scholars argued that the cedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. justice dimensions could be distinguished by their Taken together, the correlation matrices in the focus, not just their content (Blader & Tyler, 2003; three studies yielded 28 dif erent matching versus Colquitt, 2001; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Just as non-matching contrasts. Of those, 18 contrasts formal organizational procedures could be perceived revealed the predicted pattern. Interestingly, all as consistent and unbiased, so too could managers’ three studies suggested that supervisor-originating own decision-making styles (Folger & Bies, 1989; justice (whether procedural, interpersonal, or Greenberg et al., 1991; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Just as informational) was actually a stronger predictor of managerial accounts could be perceived as respect- organization-directed citizenship than was organi- ful and candid, so too could an organization’s more zation-originating justice. Indeed, supervisor-orig- formal communications. Blader and Tyler referred inating justice always explained more variance in to this organization- versus manager-originating the citizenship outcomes, regardless of their target, distinction as formal justice versus informal justice, than organization-originating justice.

4 Organizational Justice Advantages and Disadvantages of the 2008). Studies using Colquitt’s (2001) scales to Diff erentiation Trend measure the justice dimensions tend to yield dis- T e trend toward dif erentiation has benef ted the tributive-procedural correlations in the .50s, pro- literature in many ways. Dif erentiating procedural cedural-informational correlations in the .60s, and justice from distributive justice has allowed scholars interpersonal-informational correlations in the .60s, to distinguish between the ef ects of the decision- with other correlations tending to fall in the .40 making process and the ef ects of the ultimate out- range (e.g., Ambrose et al., 2007; Bell et al., 2006; come, while also exploring the interaction of the two Camerman et al., 2007; Choi, 2008; Jawahar, 2007; (Brockner, 2002; Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). Johnson, Selenta, & Lord, 2006; Judge & Colquitt, Dif erentiating interactional justice from procedural 2004; Mayer et al., 2007; Roberson & Stewart, 2006; justice has highlighted the critical role that the agents Scott et al., 2007; Siers, 2007; Spell & Arnold, 2007; of the organization can play when communicating Streicher et al., 2008). Studies using multifoci justice procedural and distributive details (e.g., Greenberg, scales tend to yield “within-focus correlations” (e.g., 1990a; Schaubroeck, May, & Brown, 1994). supervisor-originating procedural justice with super- Decomposing interactional justice into its interper- visor-originating interpersonal justice) in the .70s, sonal and informational facets has helped to clarify with other correlations falling in the .40 area (Blader that those agents have dual responsibilities during & Tyler, 2003; Horvath & Andrews, 2007; Liao & such communications—to be respectful but also to Rupp, 2005; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). be honest and informative—and that both of those Of course, most justice scholars would argue that responsibilities are uniquely relevant to employee such strong correlations are to be expected, especially reactions (Ambrose et al., 2007; Greenberg, 1993b; given that meta-analyses place even the distributive- Kernan & Hanges, 2002). T e end result of these procedural justice correlation in the .50–.60 range streams of research is that justice scholars can of er (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., managers four distinct strategies for improving fair- 2001; Hauenstein, McGonigle, & Flinder, 2001). ness perceptions in their organizations. Still, when it comes to multicollinearity, most Dif erentiating the focus of the justice percep- scholars “prefer less to more” (Schwab, 2005, p. tions has brought a more careful analysis to the 257). After all, multicollinearity inf ates the stan- examination of justice ef ects. For example, con- dard errors around regression coef cients, harm- sider a study demonstrating that procedural justice ing statistical power and resulting in “bouncing was more strongly related to organizational com- betas” from one study to the next (Cohen, Cohen, mitment than was interpersonal justice. A tempt- West, & Aiken, 2003; Schwab, 2005). Moreover, ing takeaway from that sort of study would be that because the formula for beta subtracts some portion concepts like consistency, bias suppression, and of predictor covariation from a given correlation, accuracy are more salient drivers of attachment multicollinearity results in circumstances in which than concepts like respect or propriety. However, a given predictor’s beta can be near-zero, or even if the procedural justice scale was focused on the opposite in sign from its correlation. Finally, shared organization and the interpersonal justice scale covariance between a set of predictors and an out- was focused on a supervisor, the result may instead come creates interpretational dif culties, given that show that organization-originating justice is more no one predictor receives “credit” for the ef ect. relevant to organization-focused attitudes. Indeed, Another cost of the dif erentiation trend is Liao and Rupp’s (2005) study actually showed that decreased parsimony. In his discussion of theory organization-originating interpersonal justice was a evaluation, Bacharach (1989) argued that useful stronger predictor of organizational commitment theories have constructs that suf ciently—although than organization-originating procedural justice. parsimoniously—tap the phenomenon of inter- T is nuance can therefore provide cleaner inter- est. T e parsimony of justice models is hindered pretations of the relative importance of the justice when several variables (and degrees of freedom) are rules that have been identif ed by scholars (Adams, required to adequately capture justice perceptions— 1965; Bies & Moag, 1986; Leventhal, 1976, 1980; particularly when each of those variables winds up T ibaut & Walker, 1975). having its own mediator in a structural equation However, the trend toward dif erentiation brings model. Although scholars within the literature have signif cant costs as well. One of those costs is mul- become used to such models, they may constrain ticollinearity (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Colquitt the integration of justice concepts into other litera- & Shaw, 2005; Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, tures. For example, a scholar wanting to incorporate

Colquitt 5 justice concepts into a model of job satisfaction of the construct, with each representing the con- might be f ne measuring two justice variables, yet struct with varying degrees of accuracy. T e specif c may balk at the idea of measuring four, or even dimensions tend to be functionally similar and more eight. or less substitutable. Moreover, the specif c dimen- sions are highly correlated, as the latent construct is T e Merits of Aggregation def ned solely by the common variance shared by One potential course of action to address these the dimensions. issues is to aggregate justice, rather than dif erenti- Do theories in the justice literature support a ate it. Two dif erent approaches are possible in this latent model conceptualization? Unfortunately, the vein. One approach is to treat justice as a multi- answer is likely “sometimes,” as the justice literature dimensional construct, viewing “organizational jus- includes a number of theories and models that do tice” as a construct rather than a literature label (see not necessarily converge in their implications for Figure 16.1). Law, Wong, and colleagues have noted that question. As it is applied in the justice litera- that many literatures possess “pseudo-multidimen- ture, social exchange theory does seem consistent sional constructs,” in which authors are vague about with a latent model conceptualization, at least on whether their labels ref ect true constructs or merely a “within-focus” basis (Lavelle et al., 2007; Rupp useful umbrella terms (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998; & Cropanzano, 2002). T e application of the the- Wong, Law, & Huang, 2008). Indeed, the authors ory tends to view the specif c justice dimensions as list the justice literature as an example of this prob- more or less substitutable examples of a “benef ts” lem, noting that scholars sometimes draw conclu- construct (Blau, 1964). T e key distinction is one sions about justice, in a general sense, from f ndings of focus, as supervisor-originating benef ts should that focus specif cally on particular dimensions. trigger supervisor-directed reciprocation, whereas Law, Wong, and colleagues describe multiple organization-originating benef ts should trigger types of multidimensional constructs, noting that organization-directed reciprocation. No dif erential sound theory is needed to guide one’s choice of predictions are made for the distributive, procedural, the most appropriate type (Law et al., 1998; Wong interpersonal, and informational justice dimensions et al., 2008). T e most familiar type is the “latent when focus is held constant (Lavelle et al., 2007; model,” in which the construct is viewed as a higher Liao & Rupp, 2005; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). order, unobservable abstraction underlying the spe- Fairness heuristic theory represents another cif c dimensions. In a latent model, specif c dimen- theory that would be consistent with a latent sions serve as dif erent manifestations or realizations model conceptualization. T is theory argues that

Organizational Attitudes and Justice Behaviors

Distributive Procedural Interpersonal Informational Justice Justice Justice Justice

Figure 16.1 Aggregating Justice Using a Higher-Order Latent Variable.

6 Organizational Justice newcomers in an organization are motivated to inappropriate. If predictions are focused on the form a “fairness heuristic” quickly, so that the heu- ef ects of shared justice variance, however, then a ristic can be used to inform decisions about whether latent model approach would be suitable (Fassina to cooperate with authorities (Lind, 2001a; Van den et al., 2008). At this point, however, examples of a Bos, 2001). T e newcomers draw on whatever jus- latent model approach are very rare. In their chapter tice-relevant information is f rst encountered or is on justice measurement, Colquitt and Shaw (2005) most interpretable, regardless of whether it is of a showed that Colquitt’s (2001) four scales had strong procedural, distributive, interpersonal, or informa- factor loadings if used as latent indicators of a higher tional nature. During this initial judgmental phase, order “organizational justice” construct. T e only the justice-relevant information is used to form a refereed example of a latent model approach is Liao’s general fairness impression. However, after this ini- (2007) study of how customer service employees tial phase, it is actually that general impression that respond to product complaints. Liao noted that the drives judgments of the specif c justice dimensions approach was utilized in the interest of parsimony (Lind, 2001a). At that point, judgments of proce- in that dif erential predictions were not of ered for dural, distributive, interpersonal, or informational the specif c justice dimensions. As in Colquitt and justice merely serve as dif erent manifestations of Shaw (2005), Liao’s (2007) results showed that the the same fairness heuristic construct. four justice dimensions had strong loadings on a A third theory in the literature would not be con- higher order organizational justice factor. In addi- sistent with a latent model conceptualization, how- tion, because the specif c dimensions were measured ever. Fairness theory argues that individuals react to and included in the study as indicators, the reader decision events by engaging in counterfactual think- could peruse the correlation matrix to examine any ing (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998, 2001). “Could” dif erential relationships that might be evident. counterfactuals consider whether the decision event Another approach to aggregation would be to could have played out dif erently. “Should” coun- include an actual scale devoted to an overall sense terfactuals consider whether moral standards were of fairness. Although this overall fairness could violated during the event. “Would” counterfactuals serve a number of roles, it is often discussed as consider whether one’s well-being would have been “theoretically downstream” from the specif c justice better if events had played out dif erently. T e the- dimensions (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Ambrose ory suggests that individuals will blame an authority & Schminke, 2009; Colquitt, Greenberg, & Scott, for an event when it could have (and should have) 2005; Colquitt & Shaw, 2005; Leventhal, 1980). occurred dif erently, and when well-being would From this perspective, distributive, procedural, have been better had the alternative scenario played interpersonal, and informational justice serve as out. Importantly, the dif erent justice dimen- antecedents of overall fairness, with overall fairness sions are most relevant to dif erent counterfactu- then serving as an antecedent of attitudinal and als (Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003). For example, behavioral outcomes (see Figure 16.2). T e posi- distributive justice is most relevant to the “would” tioning of overall fairness in Figure 16.2 is similar counterfactual because well-being is often def ned to the positioning of overall satisfaction scales in the in outcome terms. Procedural and interpersonal job satisfaction literature, which often view overall concepts such as bias suppression, ethicality, and satisfaction as a consequence of more specif c satis- propriety are most relevant to the “should” coun- faction facets (e.g., Bowling & Hammond, 2008; terfactual because they are more “morally charged.” Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989). Informational justice is most relevant to the “could” T e use of an overall fairness measure has a num- counterfactual if explanations are used to excuse the ber of potential benef ts. Perhaps most importantly, event in question. T us, the justice dimensions are it explicitly captures the “that’s not fair!” response less substitutable in this theory’s formulations, and that is expected to accompany violations of rules like do not appear to be dif erent manifestations of some equity, consistency, accuracy, respect, truthfulness, common construct. and so forth. It also allows scholars to verify that it T e appropriateness of a latent model conceptu- is that sense of fairness or unfairness that explains alization would therefore seem to depend on the the- why distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and oretical grounding for a given study and the nature informational justice are predictive of key organi- of its specif c predictions. If predictions are focused zational outcomes. T e relationship between overall on the independent or interactive ef ects of specif c fairness and those outcomes is also devoid of mul- justice dimensions, such an approach is obviously ticollinearity (though multicollinearity would still

Colquitt 7 Distributive Justice

Procedural Justice

Overall Attitudes and Fairness Behaviors

Interpersonal Justice

Informational Justice

Figure 16.2 Aggregating Justice Using Overall Fairness Perceptions.

become problematic if Figure 16.2 were replaced by may also be colored by the perceiver’s af ect or by a partially mediated structure that included direct other qualities of the target, such as supportiveness ef ects of the specif c justice dimensions on the out- or f exibility (Colquitt & Shaw, 2005; Hollensbe, comes of interest). Moreover, because of its brevity, Khazanchi, & Masterson, 2008). overall fairness could serve as a useful construct for Interestingly, of the six studies that have opera- inclusion in studies that are not focused on organi- tionalized overall fairness, only two cast overall zational justice per se. fairness as a mediator of the ef ects of the specif c At least six studies have included measures of justice dimensions. Kim and Leung’s (2007) results overall fairness (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Choi, suggested that overall fairness mediated the ef ects 2008; Kim & Leung, 2007; Masterson, 2001; Rodell of the specif c justice dimensions on job satisfaction & Colquitt, 2009; Zapata-Phelan, Colquitt, Scott, and turnover intentions. Ambrose and Schminke’s & Livingston, 2009). One challenge in constructing (2009) results revealed the same pattern for both such measures is to avoid item wording or content attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, including citi- that seems to ref ect some justice dimensions more zenship and counterproductive behavior. In contrast, than others. T e measures shown in Table 16.1 Choi (2008) cast overall fairness as a moderator of attempt to strike that balance by utilizing broad, the relationship between specif c justice dimen- all-encompassing terms like is or acts. In contrast, sions and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, measures by Ambrose and Schminke (2009) and consistent with Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, and Kim and Leung (2007) sometimes utilize the word Rupp’s (2001) model of “event versus entity” justice treats, which may ref ect interpersonal justice more judgments. Rodell and Colquitt (2009) cast over- than the other justice dimensions. Another chal- all fairness as an antecedent of the specif c justice lenge in constructing such measures is that percep- dimensions, consistent with Lind’s (2001a) descrip- tions of overall fairness may be driven by more than tion of fairness heuristic theory. As in the discus- just the specif c justice dimensions. Such judgments sion of the latent model, such variations reveal the

8 Organizational Justice Table 16.1. Examples of Measures of Overall Fairness Author String Items

Choi (2008)a 1. My supervisor always gives me a fair deal. 2. My supervisor is a fair person. 3. Fairness is the word that best describes my supervisor.

Masterson (2001)a 1. Overall, I believe the university is a fair organization. 2. I do not believe that the university is a fair organization. (R) 3. In general, I believe the university is just. 4. On the whole, the university is a fair organization.

Rodell & Colquitt (2009)b 1. How often does your immediate supervisor act fairly toward you? 2. To what extent do you believe that your immediate supervisor is fair to you? 3. How fair do you think your immediate supervisor is to you?

Zapata-Phelan, Colquitt, Scott, 1. In general, the experiment was fair. & Livingston (2009)c 2. Overall, I felt that this experiment was done fairly. 3. If asked, I would tell other students that this experiment was fair. a Item anchors range from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. b Item anchors are as follows: (1) 1 = Almost Never to 5 = Almost Always, (2) 1 = To a Very Small Extent to 5 = To a Very Large Extent, (3) 1 = Very Unfair to 5 = Very Fair. c Item anchors range from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree.

dif ering predictions that justice theories make for Walker (1975) argued that justice is valued because overall assessments of fairness. it provides a sense of control and predictability for outcomes over the long term. From this perspective, Trend Two: Cognition individuals value and consider justice rules because Many of the earliest models of justice were cog- justice is instrumental—it helps in the attainment nitive in nature, viewing justice through a lens of of valued outcomes. mental deliberation and/or intuition. Some models Partially in response to the instrumental model, have stressed the controlled or calculative end of the Lind and Tyler (1988) suggested that individuals cognitive continuum, whereas others have stressed also attend to justice issues because fairness satisf es the automatic or heuristic end (see Cropanzano a goal (or need) for positive self-regard or belong- et al., 2001, and Lind, 2001b, for a discussion of ing. T e relational model argues that individuals are such issues). Regardless of these dif erences, the motivated to belong to groups and that they look trend toward cognition can be seen in a number of for signals about the extent to which those groups research streams within the literature. T ose streams value them (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, include research focused on why individuals care 1992). When authorities are neutral and unbiased, about justice issues, how individuals form justice or when they implement procedures with dignity perceptions, and why justice is predictive of atti- and respect, they convey to the relevant individuals tudes and behaviors. a sense of status in the group. T is model is capable Beginning with the “Why do individuals care?” of explaining why fair treatment is associated with question, a review by Gillespie and Greenberg (2005) more favorable reactions, even when it does not noted that justice is assumed to fulf ll a number of enhance actual control over outcomes or resources key goals, where goals are def ned as cognitive rep- (Tyler, 1994). resentations of desired states. Similarly, Cropanzano A more recent model emphasizes a third goal (or et al.’s (2001) review argued that justice is assumed need). T e deontic model (Cropanzano, Goldman, to fulf ll multiple needs, where needs can be def ned & Folger, 2003; Folger, 1998, 2001), sometimes as cognitive groupings of outcomes that have critical also termed the moral virtue model (Cropanzano consequences to the individual. One goal (or need) et al., 2001), argues that individuals attend to jus- that was emphasized in early justice research is con- tice issues because they signal a respect for principled trol. In what has come to be known as the instru- moral obligations. T at is, rather than merely signaling mental model (Lind & Tyler, 1988), T ibaut and a sense of control or esteem, justice is valued because

Colquitt 9 “virtue serves as its own reward” (Folger, 1998, p. 32). structures that include all of the essential features T e deontic model is able to explain why individu- of a given category. Ambrose and Kulik (2001) als value justice, even when it does not benef t their suggest that the justice rules identif ed by T ibaut own outcomes, and even when it does not improve and Walker (1975), Leventhal (1976, 1980), Bies their standing in some relevant social group (Turillo, and Moag (1986), and others represent the fea- Folger, Lavelle, Umphress, & Gee, 2002). tures of a category prototype for justice, though As with the goals and needs used by the models some rules may be more essential to the proto- above, justice theories also use cognitive mecha- type, with others being more peripheral. From nisms to explain how individuals form justice this perspective, a given decision event is judged judgments. As described in the discussion of the to be fair when the event’s features match the cen- dif erentiation trend, fairness heuristic theory tral elements of the justice category prototype. argues that justice-relevant information is quickly Finally, explanations about why justice is predic- aggregated into a “fairness heuristic” that is used tive of attitudes and behaviors have also been largely to guide subsequent attitudes and behaviors cognitive in nature. Consider the social exchange- (Lind, 2001a; Van den Bos, 2001). T e theory based explanation described in the prior section— views distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and that fair behaviors serve as a benef t to an employee, informational justice information as substitutable with attitudes and behaviors that support the orga- inputs into that heuristic creation process. Because nization of ered in reciprocation (Blau, 1964). organizational newcomers will often experience Blau’s description of the social exchange dynamic decision-making procedures before the outcomes emphasizes the concept of obligation. When fair become apparent, and because information about treatment is received, a general expectation of future outcome comparisons may not be available, proce- return is triggered, though the form or time frame dural information often has a particularly strong for that return is left unspecif ed. Blau (1964) also impact on the heuristic. Regardless of which jus- emphasizes the important of trust to the establish- tice dimension winds up being experienced f rst ment and expansion of the social exchange dynamic. or being viewed as most interpretable, this theory Reciprocation may not be of ered if the exchange portrays the development of justice judgments as partner is not deemed trustworthy, and recipro- less deliberate and ef ortful. cation will not deepen if trust does not expand A dif erent portrayal is of ered by fairness theory commensurately. T ose descriptions highlight the (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998, 2001). T e counter- calculated rationality used to explain the relation- factual thinking described by this theory brings a ship between justice and employee reactions. more structured and careful analysis to the justice judgment process, as individuals ask whether events Advantages and Disadvantages of the “could” have played out dif erently, whether author- Cognition Trend ities “should” have acted dif erently, and whether T e trend toward cognition has benef ted the well-being “would” have been enhanced if events literature in a number of ways. It has, for example, had occurred dif erently. Although there is no one enabled scholars to look inside the “black box” of order in which these counterfactual cognitions must justice perceptions to explain how and why indi- be considered, all three seem necessary to ultimately viduals come to view decision events and authori- decide how to react to the authority in terms of per- ties as fair or unfair. In so doing, the theories that ceived fairness, perceived accountability, and poten- introduced the cognitive mechanisms helped to f ll tial for blame. As a result, fairness theory requires a a void in the literature. Literature reviews near the more extensive consideration of the justice dimen- beginning of the 1990s pointed to a dearth of inte- sions than does fairness heuristic theory. grative theories in the justice literature (Greenberg, Although it has gained less research attention 1990b; Lind & Tyler, 1988). T e relational model, than fairness theory and fairness heuristic theory, fairness theory, and fairness heuristic theory joined another model provides a third example of explain- social exchange theory to give the justice literature ing the justice judgment process with cognitive a level of conceptual richness that other literatures mechanisms. Ambrose and Kulik’s (2001) catego- may not enjoy. T ose theories have also served as rization approach relies on categories to describe conceptual “jumping-of points” for other theoriz- how fairness perceptions are formed. Categories ing that has identif ed mediators and moderators of are cognitive structures that represent the features justice relationships (Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003; of a given stimulus. Category prototypes are special Cropanzano et al., 2001).

10 Organizational Justice However, the trend toward cognition has Moods are typically operationalized on a more important limitations as well. First and foremost, aggregate basis, with positive moods ref ecting it has created somewhat of a disconnect between pleasant and active forms of state af ect and nega- how employees describe fairness and how aca- tive moods ref ecting unpleasant and active forms demics study it. Bies and Tripp (2002) note that of state af ect. Finally, trait af ectivity ref ects a dis- employees feel injustice on an emotional basis— positional tendency to experience positive or nega- reporting anger, bitterness, and fear in connection tive feeling states. As with mood, trait af ectivity is with violations of justice rules. T e authors sug- typically operationalized on a more aggregate basis, gested that the justice literature has focused more in the form of positive af ectivity and negative af ec- on the cognitive “high ground” than the emo- tivity. T ose dimensions are functionally similar tional “valley of darkness” associated with experi- (if not identical) to the personality dimensions of ences of injustice. Similarly, Folger, Cropanzano, extraversion and neuroticism, respectively (Clark & and Goldman’s (2005) discussion of fairness the- Watson, 1999). ory and the deontic model notes that the capac- Figure 16.3 illustrates some of the emotions, ity to reason about justice operates simultaneously mood, and trait af ectivity ef ects that have begun with a sense of anger that results from violations of to be examined by justice scholars. For example, moral standards. Van den Bos (2003) examined the ef ects of mood T e neglect of af ective mechanisms creates on fairness perceptions when information on justice an unmeasured variables problem in many of the criteria was clear versus unclear. In two studies, the models in the justice literature. Consider the notion author manipulated the degree to which T ibaut that biased procedures result in a less favorable jus- and Walker’s (1975) process-control criterion was tice judgment, which then results in a scaling back clearly and unambiguously fulf lled by compar- of reciprocation behaviors on the job. Explicitly ing three conditions: (a) process control explicitly considering the role of af ect could change “what granted, (b) process control explicitly denied, and we know” about the links in that presumed causal (c) process control not mentioned. T e author chain. It may be that the unfavorable justice judg- also manipulated mood by asking participants to ment triggers a negative emotion and gives that describe and write about the experience of being emotion its depth and resonance. However, it may either happy or angry. T e results of the study also be that the experience of bias itself triggers showed that mood had little impact on fairness the emotion, with a justice-relevant label ascribed perceptions when information about process con- to make sense of the feeling post hoc (Bies & trol was clear and unambiguous. However, when Tripp, 2002; Colquitt, Greenberg, & Scott, 2005). information on that procedural justice rule was Moreover, it may be that the emotional reactions omitted, participants in the positive mood condi- fully mediate the ef ects of the bias on subsequent tion perceived more fairness than participants in the behaviors, with the justice judgment having no negative mood condition. Essentially, mood “f lled unique mediating role. T e only way to ascertain in the gaps” left by the absence of clear information the relative ef ects of cognitive and af ective mecha- on relevant justice rules. nisms is to integrate af ect into the justice literature Barsky and Kaplan (2007) examining the ef ects more fully. of both mood and trait af ectivity on measures of procedural, distributive, and interactional justice. T e Merits of Aff ect More specif cally, the authors conducted a meta- A number of af ective variables and mecha- analysis of 57 samples that included measures of the nisms are potentially relevant to justice theoriz- justice dimensions, mood, and/or trait af ectivity. ing (Cohen-Charash & Byrne, 2008). T at list T e results yielded moderately strong correlations includes emotions, mood, and trait af ectivity (for between mood and the justice dimensions. Positive a review, see Grandey, 2008). Emotions are short- mood was associated with more favorable justice per- term feeling states that are referenced to a partic- ceptions, and negative mood was associated with less ular target. A number of emotions are relevant to favorable justice perceptions. Interestingly, the mag- justice models, including positive emotions (e.g., nitude of the positive and negative mood ef ects were happiness, pride, gratitude) and negative emotions quite similar. T e results yielded somewhat weaker, (e.g., anger, sadness, fear, envy). Moods are feel- but still signif cant correlations between trait af ec- ing states that are weaker in intensity and longer in tivity and the justice dimensions. As with the mood duration than emotions, and lack a salient target. results, the magnitude of the positive and negative

Colquitt 11 Trait Afectivity Mood

Procedural Distributive Justice Justice Overall Attitudes and Fairness Behaviors Interpersonal Informational Justice Justice

Emotions

Figure 16.3 Integrating Justice and Af ect. af ectivity ef ects were similar. It therefore appears Whereas the studies reviewed above cast af ect that positive af ect and negative af ect can “move the as an antecedent of justice perceptions, other work needle” on justice perceptions to a similar degree. has focused on af ect as a consequence of them. T is Barsky and Kaplan’s (2007) review raises a num- stream of research focuses on emotions rather than ber of questions about the role of af ect in forming mood or trait af ectivity, given that emotions can justice perceptions. For example, given that most be referenced to a particular agent, action, or event. of the articles included in the review were f eld Drawing on appraisal theories of emotions, Weiss, studies that utilized self-report measures of both Suckow, and Cropanzano (1999) conducted one of af ect and justice, it may be that the meta-analytic the earliest studies in this stream. T e authors noted correlations are inf ated by common method bias that events f rst trigger a primary appraisal, which is (Podsakof , MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakof , 2003). a gross evaluation of whether an event is harmful or It would therefore be useful to compare Barsky benef cial to relevant goals or values. T is appraisal and Kaplan’s (2007) results with studies that uti- determines the general valence of the state af ect, in lize multiple sources. For example, Rodell and terms of whether it is positive or negative. A second- Colquitt (2009) showed that ratings of neurot- ary appraisal then follows, which includes an assess- icism by signif cant others were negatively corre- ment of whether the outcome is attributed to the lated with a number of justice dimensions. Even self or some other. It is this secondary appraisal that here, however, the interpretation of the f ndings typically results in the dif erentiation of positive or is ambiguous, as individuals who are rated high negative state af ect into more discrete emotions. in negative af ectivity should themselves exhibit a In a laboratory study, Weiss et al. (1999) paired strictness bias on many self-report measures (jus- participants with a confederate in order to compete tice included). Moreover, as Barsky and Kaplan with another pair of confederates on a decision- (2007) note, it may be that the af ect exhibited by making task. Two procedurally unjust conditions individuals leads to “objectively” dif erent treat- were created: a favorably biased condition in which ment by organizational authorities. For example, the confederate mentioned that a friend had already an individual who frequently exhibits feelings of done the study and provided some answers, and an hostility may actually experience more disrespect- unfavorably biased condition in which the partici- ful treatment by a supervisor as a direct result (the pant overheard the other pair mentioning the same subsequent section of this review discusses this advantage. No such information was given in a possibility in more detail). third condition, ref ecting a more procedurally just

12 Organizational Justice circumstance. T e study crossed these conditions stronger relationships with anger when distributive with outcome favorability, with participants win- justice was low than when it was high. In addition, ning the competition in some conditions and losing the highest levels of anger were felt when all three it in other conditions. Participants then f lled out justice dimensions were low. T us, as in Weiss et al. a survey that asked, “Please indicate how you feel (1999), anger seemed to depend on both the pri- about what just happened,” with items included to mary appraisal and the secondary appraisal. represent happiness, pride, anger, and guilt. Goldman’s (2003) study also examined two Weiss et al.’s (1999) results showed that hap- other af ective inf uences from Figure 16.3. First, piness was driven solely by outcome favorability, he examined whether anger served to mediate the suggesting that it depends only on primary apprais- negative relationship between justice perceptions als of harm or benef t. T e authors had expected and whether the terminated individual f led a legal that pride would be highest when the outcome was claim against the company. T e results revealed the favorable and the procedure was either just or unfa- same three-way interaction for legal claiming that vorably biased. However, as with happiness, pride was described above, and the results further showed was driven primarily by outcome favorability, with that the ef ect was mediated by anger. Second, he the predicted procedural pattern failing to emerge. examined whether trait anger—a more specif c With respect to the negative emotions, anger was facet of trait negative af ectivity—moderated the highest when the outcome was unfavorable and relationship between the justice dimensions and the procedure was unfavorably biased. Guilt, in legal claiming. T e results showed that the three- contrast, was highest when the outcome was favor- way interaction for legal claiming was more pro- able and the procedure was favorably biased. T e nounced for individuals who experience anger more two negative emotions therefore seemed to depend frequently, as a function of their disposition. on both primary and secondary appraisal, with the A f eld study by Fox, Spector, and Miles (2001) gross evaluation of harm or benef t needing to be examined a similar set of relationships, though it supplemented with information about whether the dif ered from Goldman’s (2003) study in two key outcome could be attributed to oneself or another. respects. First, it focused on the main ef ects of In a subsequent study, Krehbiel and Cropanzano the justice dimensions rather than their interactive (2000) replicated the above f ndings for happi- ef ects. Second, it did not focus on a specif c deci- ness and pride, while also showing that a negative sion event, instead surveying a variety of employees emotion—disappointment—was solely driven about more general perceptions of distributive and by outcome favorability. Other emotions again procedural justice (with the latter also containing depended on particular combinations of outcome interactional items). As a result of this second dif er- favorability and procedural justice, including anger, ence, the emotion measures also dif ered from the guilt, and anxiety. Barclay, Skarlicki, and Pugh studies reviewed above. Rather than asking how the (2005) conducted a f eld study of reactions to a lay- participants felt at a specif c point in time, Fox et al. of event, focusing primarily on the negative emo- (2001) assessed the degree to which their jobs have tions of guilt and anger. As in Weiss et al. (1999), made them feel particular emotions during the past their results showed that those emotions were an 30 days (Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, and Kelloway interactive function of outcome favorability (i.e., [2000] termed this “af ective well-being”). T e the quality of the severance package) and the jus- results showed that negative af ective well-being (an tice of the layof process (i.e., procedural justice and amalgam of fear, anger, disgust, and sadness) medi- interactional justice). ated the relationship between procedural justice and Given the distinction between outcome favorabil- counterproductive behaviors. Positive af ective well- ity and distributive justice, an important issue is being (an amalgam of enthusiasm, pride, happiness, whether the same sort of interactive pattern exists and contentment) was also included, though it when the outcome is expressed in equity terms. A exhibited weaker relationships with counterproduc- f eld study by Goldman (2003) examined this issue tive behaviors. Fox et al. (2001) also included two in a study of reactions to a termination event. T e measures of trait af ectivity—trait anger and trait results of the study showed that anger was predicted anxiety—but neither was shown to be a signif cant by a three-way interaction of distributive justice, moderator of the justice-counterproductive behav- procedural justice, and interactional justice. T e ior relationships. pattern of this interaction revealed that the proce- A more recent study relied on an experience sam- dural and interactional justice combinations had pling methodology (ESM) to examine the mediating

Colquitt 13 and moderating ef ects of emotions and trait af ec- initial studies on interactional justice (e.g., Bies tivity. Judge et al. (2006) surveyed employees at the & Shapiro, 1988) were focused on supporting the end of each workday for a three-week time period. notion that respect, propriety, truthfulness, and jus- T e participants completed self-report measures of tif cation could be used to create a fair procedural interpersonal justice, anger, job satisfaction, and enactment (Bies & Moag, 1986). T ese sorts of counterproductive behavior each day, and a sig- early studies would fall under Greenberg’s (1987) nif cant other completed a measure of trait anger. proactive label because they are focused on the cre- T e ESM results showed that more than half of the ation of fairness. variation in counterproductive behavior was with- Once the constitutive elements of the justice in-person variance (as opposed to between-person dimensions became clear, however, the literature variance). T e results suggested that the relationship began to move in a decidedly reactive direction. between interpersonal justice and counterproduc- Many of the studies spotlighted in the prior sections tive behavior was mediated by state anger and job of this review are indicative of that trend. Early satisfaction. Moreover, trait anger moderated the work on the distributive and procedural justice interpersonal justice–state anger relationship, such distinction cast justice as the independent variable, that the linkage was stronger for individuals who with job attitudes (job satisfaction, trust, organi- were more prone to experience feelings of anger and zational commitment) serving as the outcomes hostility. (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993). T e advent of Trend T ree: Exogeneity the social exchange lens brought a new set of vari- In his review that coined the “organizational ables for justice to predict, including citizenship and justice” term, Greenberg (1987) introduced a 2 x other reciprocation-oriented behaviors (Blau, 1964; 2 taxonomy to organize the models in the nascent Masterson et al., 2000; Organ, 1990). Even the literature. One of the taxonomy dimensions was studies linking justice to af ect have tended to adopt process versus outcome, ref ecting the distinction a reactive structure, with the justice dimensions between procedural and distributive justice. T e serving as predictors of emotions and emotion- other dimension was reactive versus proactive, with driven behaviors (Barclay et al., 2005; Fox et al., the former focusing on reactions to just and unjust 2001; Goldman, 2003; Krehbiel & Cropanzano, events, and the latter focused on the behaviors that 2000; Judge et al., 2006; Weiss et al., 1999). can create just events. For example, Adam’s (1965) T e end result of this reactive focus is that jus- work on equity theory exemplif ed the outcome-re- tice is exogenous in most of the empirical studies in active cell, because it focused on reactions to inequi- the literature. T at is, scales like Colquitt’s (2001) table outcome distributions. In contrast, Leventhal’s or Moorman’s (1991) are utilized as the indepen- (1976) work on allocation norms was proactive, dent variables, with direct and indirect ef ects on because it focused on the ef ects of certain goals attitudinal, af ective, and behavioral variables. It is (e.g., individual productivity as opposed to group true that measures of fairness perceptions, similar to harmony or personal welfare) on the decision to uti- the type shown in Table 16.1, may be endogenous lize an equity norm. in some studies. However, the focal independent In ref ecting on the 1987 taxonomy, Greenberg variables in those studies are often manipulations or and Wiethof (2001) noted that reactive research measures of the rules included in Colquitt’s (2001) explores this focal question: “How do people and Moorman’s (1991) measures. Moreover, such respond to fair and unfair conditions?” (p. 272). In studies may still ultimately be focused on the pre- contrast, proactive research explores a dif erent focal diction of some attitudinal, af ective, or behavioral question: “How can fair conditions be created?” reaction. (p. 272). At the time of Greenberg’s (1987) review, the justice literature was still focused on the spe- Advantages and Disadvantages of the cif c procedural rules that could be used to promote Exogeneity Trend perceptions of fairness. For example, Greenberg’s T e trend toward exogeneity has benef ted the (1986) Q-sort study supported the notion that pro- literature in a number of ways. Perhaps most impor- cess control, consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, tantly, it helped establish the organizational justice correctability, and so forth could be used to create literature as a worthy area of study. Within a few a fair decision-making process (Leventhal, 1980; years of the construct’s introduction to the organi- T ibaut & Walker, 1975). As another example, zational sciences, reactive research had shown that

14 Organizational Justice justice was as predictive, or more predictive, of during layof events. One aspect of the organization, relevant criteria than other job attitudes or other whether or not it was unionized, predicted the num- leader variables. T ose f ndings brought a practi- ber of days notice that employees were given—an cal relevance to the literature, providing an incen- aspect of informational justice. T at variable was tive to conduct f eld research that could benef t the not related to the amount of information that was host organization. T ose f ndings also brought a shared, however, nor was it related to the demeanor theoretical relevance to the literature, encouraging used to communicate the layof —an aspect of inter- scholars in other literatures to “import” justice con- personal justice. T e authors also assessed manage- cepts into their work. Indeed, were it not for that rial variables, including past experience conducting reactive focus, it would be dif cult to conceive of layof s and the number of employees personally laid the literature’s rapid growth in the past two decades of . Past experience was actually negatively related (Colquitt, 2008). to days notice, whereas the number laid of was pos- However, a consequence of this focus is that itively related to the amount of information shared. scholars know little about the circumstances Neither variable predicted the demeanor used to that result in an adherence to the justice rules communicate the layof , however. described by Leventhal (1976, 1980), T ibaut and A dif erent set of managerial variables was exam- Walker (1975), Bies and Moag (1986), and oth- ined by Mayer et al. (2007) in a sample of grocery ers. Presumably, there are features of the organiza- store employees. T e authors measured manage- tion, the manager, or the employee that decrease rial personality in terms of the f ve-factor model, the likelihood that those justice rules will be vio- attempting to link those dimensions to procedural, lated (Gilliland, Steiner, Skarlicki, & Van den Bos, interpersonal, and informational justice rule adher- 2005). As Greenberg and Wiethof (2001) describe, ence. T e results of the study depended on whether proactive research treats justice as a motive—it seeks the Big Five were examined separately or in tandem. to explain why individuals strive to create just states. However, the results seemed to support a negative Organizational, managerial, and employee factors relationship between neuroticism and interpersonal may predict that motive, or they may create a cir- justice rule adherence and a positive relationship cumstance in which the motive is easier to act upon. between agreeableness and informational justice In either event, identifying the factors that foster rule adherence. Neurotic managers tended to com- justice rule adherence requires making the justice municate less respectfully, and agreeable managers dimensions endogenous within empirical studies. tended to be more candid and forthcoming. None of the Big Five variables predicted adherence to pro- T e Merits of Endogeneity cedural justice rules, however. An emerging set of empirical studies has begun Although the studies reviewed above revealed to examine antecedents of the justice dimensions. some linkages between organizational and manage- Some of those antecedents are characteristics of the rial variables and the justice dimensions, it may also organization. Schminke, Ambrose, and Cropanzano be that the employee has some impact on the treat- (2000) linked aspects of the organization’s structure ment that he or she receives. Korsgaard, Roberson, to adherence to the process control and bias sup- and Rymph (1998) examined this possibility in pression rules of procedural justice. For example, two studies. T ey reasoned that assertive employ- employees reported less adherence to those rules ees would receive more extensive justif cations from when the organization had a centralized authority their managers because of their tendency to use hierarchy, meaning that even small decisions had conf dent posture and eye contact and to ask ques- to be referred to a “higher up” for approval. Such tions of clarif cation. A laboratory study supported results suggest that managers need to be given the relationship between employee assertiveness and enough of their own authority to maximize justice adherence to informational justice rules, but the rule adherence within their work units. Schminke et linkage was not supported in a f eld study. al. (2000) also included interactional justice, but it In a more recent study, Scott et al. (2007) exam- was operationalized using general perceptions of fair ined the ef ects of employee charisma on managers’ treatment, rather than adherence to the specif c rules adherence to justice rules. T e authors argued that of respect, propriety, truthfulness, and justif cation. charismatic employees have a “personal magnetism” Gilliland and Schepers (2003) conducted a sur- that inspires af ective responses on the part of their vey of human resources managers in a study of adher- managers. T ose af ective responses were opera- ence to interpersonal and informational justice rules tionalized using positive and negative sentiments

Colquitt 15 (i.e., tendencies to experience positive or nega- one specif c trend before moving to directions that tive emotions when around specif c individuals). involve a combination of the trends. Scott et al. (2007) argued that positive sentiments would prompt managers to be more courteous and Aggregation friendly to employees and to engage in more fre- Future research needs to critically explore quent instances of information sharing with them. whether aggregate or dif erentiated operational- Indeed, a f eld study of insurance company employ- izations are appropriate with the dominant theo- ees revealed a signif cant relationship between cha- retical lenses in the literature. T e social exchange risma and interpersonal justice, with both positive lens has emerged as the dominant framework for and negative sentiments mediating that relation- understanding the ef ects of justice on job attitudes ship. Contrary to expectations, no relationship was and behaviors (Blau, 1964; Masterson et al., 2000; observed for informational justice. Organ, 1990). As noted above, that lens seems suit- able for an aggregate approach, as justice scholars Conclusion rarely draw distinctions among the justice dimen- T ere is little doubt that the three trends spot- sions when predicting attitudes supportive of recip- lighted in this review—dif erentiation, cognition, rocation (e.g., trust, commitment, felt obligation) and exogeneity—have fueled the growth of the or behaviors indicative of reciprocation (e.g., citi- justice literature and have brought a cohesion and zenship). Instead, the only distinctions that tend to structure to the domain. T ere is also little doubt be made concern the source of the justice and the that the trends have impacted how a given justice target of the reciprocation. However, discussions of study “looks,” in terms of the models it tests, the social exchange theory describe a number of ben- conceptual lenses it uses, and the methods and sta- ef ts that can be used to foster exchange relation- tistics it employs. As the literature reaches a more ships, including information, advice, assistance, mature stage of its life cycle, however, one poten- social acceptance, status, and appreciation (Blau, tial concern is that the signif cant advances of the 1964; Foa & Foa, 1980). It may be that specif c past will give way to more incremental or mar- justice rules are more relevant to some of those ben- ginal advances. T is chapter has argued that justice ef ts than others, creating distinctions in the specif c scholars should consider the merits of the obverses nature of the resulting exchange dynamic. of these literature trends—aggregation, af ect, and Testing the viability of an aggregate approach to endogeneity—in order to tap into their potential social exchange theorizing could be done in a num- for creating new directions for justice research. By ber of ways. For example, the variance explained in “breaking the mold” that has come to def ne justice reciprocation attitudes and behaviors by the four studies, ef orts focused on aggregation, af ect, and justice dimensions could be compared to the vari- endogeneity could result in more novel, innovative, ance explained by a higher order justice dimension and signif cant advances. or a measure of overall fairness. Presumably, some decrement in variance-explained would result for Future Directions an aggregate approach. T e question would be how Of course, going against the trends that have much was lost, and whether that decrement was shaped the literature could be viewed as risky by justif able given the gain in parsimony. As another the potential authors of such studies. On the one example, the pattern of correlations between hand, many top-tier journals explicitly emphasize aggregate justice (whether a higher order dimen- novelty in their mission statements and information sion or an overall measure) and a set of reciproca- for contributors. On the other hand, many editors tion attitudes and behaviors could be compared to and reviewers use the characteristics of more typi- the corresponding patterns for the specif c justice cal justice studies to create a sort of template for dimensions. If the dimensional nuance matters, the judging the theoretical and empirical adequacy of distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informa- new submissions. T is chapter therefore closes with tional patterns will dif er from one another, and will some research directions that can be used to guide also dif er from the aggregate pattern. Westen and future steps down the aggregation, af ect, and endo- Rosenthal (2003) describe methods for quantifying geneity paths. T ese suggested directions are meant similarities in correlation patterns that could prove to be contributions that are novel but that are still useful in this regard. Regardless of the approach that grounded in established or emerging areas of the is utilized, it is important to note that such studies literature. I begin with suggestions that focus on should hold the source of the justice and the target

16 Organizational Justice of the reciprocation constant, so that dif erences in personality (Mayer et al., 2007), employee asser- relationships can be interpreted unambiguously. tiveness (Korsgaard et al., 1998), and employee cha- risma (Scott et al., 2007). Although it is dif cult to Aff ect draw conclusions from so few studies, two trends Research integrating justice and af ect should seem notable. First, several of the studies have begin to explore whether emotions mediate jus- yielded either small ef ect sizes or ef ects that are not tice ef ects when more cognitive mediators are also statistically signif cant. Second, most of the hypoth- modeled. Existing research has been more focused eses have focused on adherence to interpersonal and on identifying and clarifying the justice-emotion informational justice rules, such as respect, propri- linkages (Barclay et al., 2005; Fox et al., 2001; ety, justif cation, and truthfulness (Bies & Moag, Goldman, 2003; Krehbiel & Cropanzano, 2000; 1986; Greenberg, 1993b). Weiss et al., 1999), omitting the kinds of mediators Recent theorizing by Scott, Colquitt, and that would f ow out of more cognitive justice theo- Paddock (2009) can shed some light on these emerg- rizing. Do positive and negative emotions mediate ing trends. In their actor-focused model of justice the relationships between justice and behavioral rule adherence, the authors argued that it would be reactions when mediators like trust and felt obli- easier for managers to adhere to justice rules when gation are also modeled? Examining this question they had more discretion over the actions inherent requires the integration of more cognitive theories, in those rules. T ey further argued that discretion such as social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), with over justice-relevant actions could be arrayed on a more af ective theories, such as af ective events the- continuum, with the most discretion af orded to ory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). interpersonal justice, followed by informational, One challenge in conducting such research is procedural, and distributive justice, respectively. balancing the dif ering time horizons for emotion- T e rationale for that rank order was that the inter- based mediators and cognition-based mediators. actional justice forms were less constrained by for- Studies that examine the mediating ef ects of trust mal systems, that they could be acted upon more or felt obligation would typically be between-indi- frequently, and that they were less costly to manag- vidual studies of either a cross-sectional or longitudi- ers in an economic sense. If that continuum is cor- nal nature. Because emotions are short-term feeling rect, it may be more dif cult to identify signif cant states, it may be inappropriate to operationalize predictors of procedural and distributive justice. In them in such studies. Instead, scholars may need to the case of procedural justice, a good starting point utilize more long-term feeling states that still possess might involve examining adherence to specif c rules. a particular target, such as af ective well-being (Fox For example, one study could focus on predictors of et al., 2001; Van Katwyk et al., 2000) or sentiments voice provision, another could focus on predictors (Scott et al., 2007). Alternatively, scholars could of bias suppression, and another could focus on pre- utilize ESM studies to model within-individual dictors of consistency. changes in emotions as a function of daily justice experiences. T is approach would involve measur- Multiple Trends in Combination ing mediators such as trust or felt obligation on a Other future directions lie at the intersection daily basis, so that within-person changes in those of multiple trends. In the case of aggregation and mechanisms could also be assessed. It may be, how- af ect, it is instructive to note that both justice and ever, that the within-person variation in those more af ect can be conceptualized at higher or lower lev- cognitive mediators will be limited, especially rela- els of abstraction. In the case of justice, specif c tive to the emotional mediators. rules can be grouped into the four justice dimen- sions, which can themselves be modeled as a higher Endogeneity order organizational justice variable. In the case With respect to the endogeneity trend, future of af ect, positive and negative forms of both state research should continue to examine the organi- and trait af ect can be examined at a specif c level zational, managerial, and employee variables that (e.g., state happiness and state anger; trait happi- can help predict the adherence to justice rules. ness and state anger) or an aggregate level (e.g., posi- At this point, the list of potential antecedents is tive and negative state af ect, positive and negative quite short and varied, including organizational af ectivity). From a bandwidth-f delity perspective structure (Schminke et al., 2000), unioniza- (e.g., Cronbach, 1990), it may be that the strongest tion (Gilliland & Schepers, 2003), managerial justice-af ect relationships will be observed when

Colquitt 17 the level of aggregation is consistent across the emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, guilt, anxiety, envy) variables—either both broad or both narrow. T at to within-manager variation in justice rule adher- premise is consistent with past research showing that ence. T at sort of research could reveal that organi- specif c combinations of individual justice dimen- zational justice varies signif cantly within managers, sions may be needed to predict specif c emotions not just between managers. (Barclay et al., 2005; Goldman, 2003; Krehbiel & Cropanzano, 2000; Weiss et al., 1999). References In the case of aggregation and endogeneity, it may Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz be the case that the merits of aggregation diminish (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press. when justice is cast as the dependent variable. One Ambrose, M., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and justif cation for employing a higher order organiza- distributive justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & tional justice factor is to avoid the multicollinear- J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), T e handbook of organizational justice ity that comes with multiple independent variables (pp. 59–84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. being highly correlated. However, multicollinearity Ambrose, M., Hess, R. L., & Ganesan, S. (2007). T e relation- ship between justice and attitudes: An examination of justice is not an issue when it is the dependent variables ef ects on event and system-related attitudes. Organizational that are correlated (though correlated outcomes can Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 21–36. create concerns about the family-wise error rate for Ambrose, M., & Kulik, C. T. (2001). How do I know that’s hypothesis tests). Moreover, the studies that have fair? A categorization approach to fairness judgments. In examined justice in an endogenous manner have S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), T eoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 35–61). found very dif erent results across the justice dimen- Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. sions. For example, Gilliland and Schepers (2003) Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). T e role of overall linked organizational unionization to informational justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of justice but not interpersonal justice. Mayer et al. mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 491–500. (2007) linked managerial neuroticism to interper- Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496–515. sonal justice but not informational or procedural Barclay, L. J., & Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring justice. Scott et al. (2007) linked subordinate cha- the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. risma to interpersonal justice but not informational Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 629–643. justice. Further studies should proceed in a dif er- Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it’s unfair: entiated manner to see whether those distinctions A quantitative synthesis of af ect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 286–295. are replicated. Bell, B. S., Wiechmann, D., & Ryan, A. M. (2006). Consequences of organizational justice expectations in a selection system. Aff ect and Endogeneity Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 455–466. In the case of af ect and endogeneity, future Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: research should explore whether managerial af ect Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotia- encourages or discourages adherence to justice rules. tions in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: In their actor-focused model, Scott et al. (2009) JAI Press. suggested that positive af ect could encourage jus- Bies, R. J. & Shapiro, D. L (1988). Voice and justif cation: T eir tice rule adherence, as managers look to maintain inf uence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of that af ect by acting prosocially. Negative af ect, in Management Journal, 31, 676–685. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2002). “Hot f ashes, open wounds”: turn, could discourage justice rule adherence, as Injustice and the tyranny of its emotions. In S. W. Gilliland, aversive feelings cloud moral judgment and trigger D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Emerging perspectives venting behaviors. Tests of those propositions could on managing organizational justice (pp. 203–221). Greenwich, involve trait af ectivity or mood, as the af ect need CT: Information Age Publishing. not be targeted to a given employee for justice-rel- Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural jus- evant actions to be af ected. Indeed, Mayer et al.’s tice. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 107–126. (2007) result linking higher managerial neuroticism Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: to lower interpersonal justice rule adherence is sup- Wiley. portive of Scott et al.’s theorizing. T ose could also Bobocel, D. R., Agar, S. E., & Meyer, J. P. (1998). Managerial involve emotions if an ESM approach is utilized. For accounts and fairness perceptions in conf ict resolution: Dif erentiating the ef ects of minimizing responsibility and example, a study could link within-individual var- providing justif cation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, iation in positive emotions (e.g., happiness, enthu- 20, 133–143. siasm, pride, compassion, gratitude) and negative

18 Organizational Justice Bowling, N. A., & Hammond, G. D. (2008). A meta-analytic Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. examination of the construct validity of the Michigan (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and Organizational Assessment Questionnaire job satisfaction other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational subscale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 63–77. Behavior, 58, 164–209. Brockner, J. (2002). Making sense of procedural fairness: How Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). Deontic high procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the inf uence justice: T e role of moral principles in workplace fairness. of outcome favorability. Academy of Management Review, 27, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1019–1024. 58–76. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What deter- Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative frame- mines which value will be used as the basis for distributive work for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive ef ects justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149. of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008). Meta- 189–208. analytic tests of relationships between organizational justice Camerman, J., Cropanzano, R., & Vandenberghe, C. (2007). and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and shared- T e benef ts of justice for temporary workers. Group and variance models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, Organization Management, 32, 176–207. 805–828. Choi, J. (2008). Event justice perceptions and employees’ reac- Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal tions: Perceptions of social entity justice as a moderator. behavior as exchange. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 513–528. R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1999). Temperament: A new para- research (pp. 77–94). New York: Plenum. digm for trait psychology. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke Handbook of personality: T eory and research (pp. 399–423). (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Morally managing people and pro- New York: Guilford Press. cesses (pp. 13–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. W. Gilliland, D. multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sci- D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), T eoretical and cultural ences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 3–34). Greenwich, Cohen-Charash, Y., & Byrne, Z. S. (2008). Af ect and jus- CT: Information Age Publishing. tice: Current knowledge and future directions. In N. M. Folger, R., & Bies, R. J. (1989). Managerial responsibilities Ashkanasy & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to and procedural justice. Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, emotion in organizations (pp. 360–391). Northampton, MA: 79–89. Edward Elgar. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). T e role of justice in human resource management. T ousand Oaks, CA: Sage. organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–324. as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89–118). Stanford, justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied CA: Stanford University Press. Psychology, 86, 386–400. Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. (2005). What is the Colquitt, J. A. (2008). Two decades of organizational justice: relationship between justice and morality? In J. Greenberg & Findings, controversies, and future directions. In C. L. J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), T e handbook of organizational justice Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), T e Sage handbook of organi- (pp. 215–245). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. zational behavior, Volume 1, Micro approaches (pp. 73–88). Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Ef ects of procedural Newbury Park, CA: Sage. and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta- Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and orga- Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. nizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for Colquitt, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational justice: A autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, fair assessment of the state of the literature. In J. Greenberg 291–309. (Ed.), Organizational behavior: T e state of the science (pp. Gillespie, J. Z., & Greenberg, J. (2005). Are the goals of orga- 165–210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. nizational justice self-interested? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Scott, B. A. (2005). Colquitt (Eds.), T e handbook of organizational justice (pp. Organizational justice? Where do we stand? In J. Greenberg 179–213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), T e handbook of organizational justice Gilliland, S. W., & Beckstein, B. A. (1996). Procedural and (pp. 589–619). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. distributive justice in the editorial review process. Personnel Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). Psychology, 49, 669–691. What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In Gilliland, S. W., & Schepers, D. H. (2003). Why we do the J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), T e handbook of organi- things we do: A discussion and analysis of determinants of zational justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. just treatment in layof implementation decisions. Human Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organiza- Resource Management Review, 13, 59–83. tional justice be measured? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt Gilliland, S. W., Steiner, D. D., Skarlicki, D. P., & Van den (Eds.), T e handbook of organizational justice (pp. 113–152). Bos, K. (2005). What motivates fairness in organizations? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing. New Goldman, B. M. (2003). T e application of referent cognitions York: HarperCollins. theory to legal claiming by terminated workers: T e role of

Colquitt 19 organizational justice and anger. Journal of Management, 29, Jawahar, I. M. (2007). T e inf uence of perceptions of fairness on 705–728. performance appraisal reactions. Journal of Labor Research, Grandey, A. A. (2008). Emotions at work: A review and research 28, 735–754. agenda. In C. L. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), T e Sage hand- Johnson, R. E., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2006). When organi- book of organizational behavior, Volume 1, Micro approaches zational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for (pp. 235–261). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. the organization and its members. Organizational Behavior Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of and Human Decision Processes, 99, 175–201. performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and 340–342. stress: T e mediating role of work-family conf ict. Journal of Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theo- Applied Psychology, 89, 395–404. ries. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9–22. Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job atti- Greenberg, J. (1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to underpay- tudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model. ment inequity: T e hidden cost of paycuts. Journal of Applied Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126–138. Psychology, 75, 561–568. Kernan, M. C., & Hanges, P. J. (2002). Survivor reactions to Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, reorganization: Antecedents and consequences of procedural, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432. interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal of Applied Greenberg, J. (1993a). T e intellectual adolescence of organiza- Psychology, 87, 916–928. tional justice: You’ve come a long way, maybe. Social Justice Kim, T. Y., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to over- Research, 6, 135–148. all fairness: A cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Greenberg, J. (1993b). T e social side of fairness: Interpersonal Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 83–95. and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L., & Rymph, R. D. (1998). Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fair- What motivates fairness? T e role of subordinate assertive- ness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, ness behavior on managers’ interactional fairness. Journal of NJ: Erlbaum. Applied Psychology, 83, 731–744. Greenberg, J. (1993c). Stealing in the name of justice: Krehbiel, P. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Procedural justice, Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reac- outcome favorability, and emotion. Social Justice Research, tions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior 13, 339–360. and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81–103. Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a mul- Greenberg, J. (2007). Ten good reasons why everyone needs to tifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and know about and study organizational justice. In I. Glendon, citizenship behavior: T e target similarity model. Journal of B. Myors, & B. T ompson (Eds.), Advances in organisational Management, 33, 841–866. psychology: An Asia-Pacif c perspective (pp. 181–297). Bowen Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a Hills, Queensland, Australia: Australian Academic Press. taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Greenberg, J., Bies, R. J., & Eskew, D. E. (1991). Establishing Management Review, 23, 741–755. fairness in the eye of the beholder: Managing impressions Leventhal, G. S. (1976). T e distribution of rewards and resources of organizational justice. In R. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Applied impression management: How image making (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. af ects managerial decisions (pp. 111–132). Newbury Park, 91–131). New York: Academic Press. CA: Sage. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity the- Greenberg, J., & Wiethof , C. (2001). Organizational justice as ory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social rela- proaction and reaction: Implications for research and appli- tionships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, and R. Willis (Eds.), cation. Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). pp. 271–302). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. New York: Plenum Press. Hauenstein, N. M. A., McGonigle, T., & Flinder, S. W. (2001). Liao, H. (2007). Do it right this time: T e role of employee A meta-analysis of the relationship between procedural jus- service recovery performance in customer-perceived justice tice and distributive justice: Implications for justice research. and customer loyalty after service failures. Journal of Applied Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13, 39–56. Psychology, 92, 475–489. Hollensbe, E. C., Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. (2008). Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). T e impact of justice climate How do I assess if my supervisor and organization are and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based jus- multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, tice perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 242–256. 1099–1116. Lind, E. A. (2001a). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judg- Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. ments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organiza- Horvath, M., & Andrews, S. B. (2007). T e role of fairness per- tional justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University ceptions and accountability attributions in predicting reac- Press. tions to organizational events. Journal of Psychology, 141, Lind, E. A. (2001b). T inking critically about justice judgments. 203–222. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 220–226. Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). T e social psychology of proce- & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a job in general scale: dural justice. New York: Plenum Press. A comparison of global, composite, and specif c measures. Mansour-Cole, D. M., & Scott, S. G. (1998). Hearing it through Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 193–200. the grapevine: T e inf uence of source, leader-relations,

20 Organizational Justice and legitimacy on survivors’ fairness perceptions. Personnel role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 25–54. Psychology, 94, 756–769. Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-down model of organizational Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). justice: Relating employees’ and customers’ perceptions of Justice as a dependent variable: Subordinate charisma as a and reactions to fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, predictor of interpersonal and informational justice percep- 594–604. tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1597–1609. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. Shaw, J. C., Wild, R. E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The excuse? A meta-analysis of the ef ects of explanations. Journal differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on of Applied Psychology, 88, 444–458. work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, Siers, B. (2007). Relationships among organisational justice per- 738–748. ceptions, adjustment, and turnover of United States-based Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. (2007). expatriates. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56, T e precursors and products of justice climates: Group 437–459. leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training Personnel Psychology, 60, 929–963. in organizational justice to increase citizenship behavior McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and pro- within a labor union: A replication. Personnel Psychology, 50, cedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and 617–633. organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are out- 35, 626–637. come fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psy- Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational chological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fair- Research, 16, 309–341. ness perceptions inf uence employee citizenship? Journal of Spell, C. S., & Arnold, T. (2007). An appraisal perspective of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855. justice, structure, and job control as antecedents of psy- Moorman, R. H., & Byrne, Z. S. (2005). How does organiza- chological distress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, tional justice af ect organizational citizenship behavior? In 729–751. J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), T e handbook of orga- Streicher, B., Jonas, E., Maier, G. W., Frey, D., Woschée, & nizational justice (pp. 355–380). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Waßmer, B. (2008). Test of the construct and criteria valid- Organ, D. W. (1990). T e motivational basis of organizational ity of a German measure of organizational justice. European citizenship behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 131–139. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers’ evalua- 43–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. tions of the “ends” and the “means”: An examination of four Podsakof , P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakof , N. models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational P. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23–40. critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. T ibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychologi- Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. cal analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. (1986). Handbook of organizational Turillo, C. J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J. J., Umphress, E. E., & Gee, J. measurement. Marshf eld, MA: Pittman. O. (2002). Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrif cial decisions Roberson, Q. M., & Stewart, M. M. (2006). Understanding for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human the motivational ef ects of procedural and informational jus- Decision Processes, 89, 839–865. tice in feedback processes. British Journal of Psychology, 97, Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: 281–298. Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Rodell, J. B., & Colquitt, J. A. (2009). Looking ahead in times Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863. of uncertainty: T e role of anticipatory justice in an orga- Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: nizational change context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, T e interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. Carroll 989–1002. (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). T e mediating 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ef ects of social exchange relationships in predicting work- Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of author- place outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. ity in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimen- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, tal social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). San Diego, CA: 925–946. Academic Press. Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R., & Brown, F. W. (1994). Procedural Van den Bos, K. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Assessing the justice explanations and employee reactions to economic information to which people are reacting has a pivotal role hardship: A f eld experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, in understanding organizational justice. In S. Gilliland, D. 79, 455–460. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), T eoretical and cultural per- Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. S. (2000). spectives on organizational justice (pp. 63–84). Greenwich, T e ef ect of organizational structure on perceptions of CT: Information Age Publishing. procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, Van den Bos, K. (2003). On the subjective quality of social jus- 294–304. tice: T e role of af ect as information in the psychology of Schwab, D. P. (2005). Research methods for organizational studies. justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 85, 482–498. Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, E. L. (2009). An actor- Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: T e (2000). Using the job-related af ective well-being scale

Colquitt 21 (JAWS) to investigate af ective responses to work stressors. Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 219–230. validity: Two simple measures. Journal of Personality and Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Af ective events Social Psychology, 84, 608–618. theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, Wong, C. S., Law, K. S., & Huang, G. (2008). On the impor- and consequences of af ective experiences at work. In B. tance of conducting construct-level analysis for multidimen- M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in orga- sional constructs in theory development and testing. Journal nizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: of Management, 34, 744–764. JAI Press. Zapata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & Livingston, Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Ef ects of B. (2009). Procedural justice, interactional justice, and task justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied performance: T e mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Psychology, 84, 786–794. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 93–105.

22 Organizational Justice