FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay
Organizational fairness refers to employees’ perceptions of fairness in the workplace. The conceptualization of justice has evolved over four decades of study. Although current theories and models of justice differ in the essence they emphasize, justice researchers recognize that people value organizational equality primarily based on three components: outcomes, processes, and interpersonal interactions.
Research on organizational justice shows that perceptions of equality can substantially improve a variety of attitudinal, cognitive, emotional, and behavioural outcomes among organizational employees. A rich body of investigations, both hypothetical and experiential, suggest that unusual behaviour in the workplace can be a reaction to perceived injustices by HR in their working lives. When employees experience being treated unfairly, they tend to experience feelings of anger, anger, frustration, and a desire for revenge. Deviant behaviour in the workplace involves a constellation of employee behaviour that deviates from organizational norms espoused by the dominant administrative coalition.
Research on equity initially began with a focus on equality of outcomes called distributive justice. Perceptions of distributive justice arise from situations in which people make judgments about outcomes that are unfair (eg, lack of raises, promotions, or training opportunities). Actions taken after the fairness assessment are expected to be aimed at restoring equity. Equity recovery as an attempt to raise the level of rewards to compensate for achievements that are deserved but not received. Distributive justice research has focused primarily on the effects of outcome justice on people’s responses.
Furthermore, scholars extend the construction of justice by conducting extensive research on procedural justice. Procedural justice represents the procedural aspects of justice and concerns individuals’ perceptions of the fairness of formal actions governing decisions.
The third type of justice, interactional justice, focuses on the superiority of interpersonal treatment that people receive when implementing actions and outcomes. More recently, Greenberg (1990, 1993a) distinguished between the structural and social sides of interactional justice. Interpersonal justice represents the social side, especially the social sensitivity (eg politeness, dignity and respect) given by the ruler. Informational justice represents the structural side and reflects the extent to which decision makers explain and provide adequate justification for their decisions.
A meta-analysis conducted by CohenCharash and Spector (2001) validated three-dimensional justice constructs (distributive, procedural and interactional) with interactive justice as the third component of the justice construct. A meta-analysis conducted by Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and Ng (2001) validated the differences between distributive, procedural, and international justice, as well as the differences between the interpersonal and informational aspects of international justice. Until now researchers have adopted either the 3-dimension or the 4-dimension configuration in their studies, depending on the context of their studies.
Workplace Deviant Behaviour (WDB) is touted as a laggard in the discipline of organizational behaviour. However, once this phenomenon became known, the investigation proceeded quite quickly. Over the past two decades, many journal articles and book chapters have derived different models and approaches that conceptualize the large collection of abnormal behaviours and identify their consequences.
The abnormal behaviour justice framework states that people’s perceptions and knowledge of organizational justice are strongly related to deviant behaviour and that the effects of justice on unusual behaviour can be influenced by a variety of organizational, contextual, and individual characteristics. This structure is based on theories related to distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Researchers suggest that organizational justice plays an important role in the work life of employees for various reasons. In particular, the three models explicitly outline why fair or unfair treatment can affect employees’ attitudes, emotions, and behaviour in the workplace.
Distributive Justice and Deviance
Distributive justice has been studied primarily from the perspective of equity theory. Adams’ equity theory suggests that people need to maintain a view of the social world and their organization as a fair and predictable place. People evaluate the fairness of the distribution of outcomes by comparing their contributions and outcomes with references. The unequal distribution of results leads to perceptions of injustice, which not only creates psychological stress, but also evokes behavioural responses among people. In other words, people not only express their dissatisfaction with the violation of distributive justice norms, but they also react in a certain way. Deviant behaviour is one such reaction. These actions can be carried out directly or symbolically. Early research on distributive justice showed that inequalities in the allocation of resources were a major motivation for many types of deviant behaviour. As noted above, distributive justice results from situations where people make judgments about unfair outcomes. Actions taken after an assessment of injustice.
For example, in semi-structured interviews with retired textile workers, Sieh (1987) found that distributive inequality is an important cause for workers to commit theft, sabotage or mutilation, because workers feel the organization owes them a debt. Hollinger and Clark (1982) found that perceived inequalities lead to employee ownership and production drift across a wide range of industries.
Procedural Justice and Deviance
Research in the field of justice has mushroomed since the introduction of procedural justice. Procedural justice theory suggests that people make fairness judgments not only based on the outcomes they receive, but also on the actions used to determine those outcomes.
Lind and Tyler (1988) suggest two models of procedural justice that explain the importance of fair action on people’s perceptions of fairness and outcomes. First, the self-interest or instrumental model states that process control is seen as influential in achieving the desired results. By controlling the stock, one can maximize the opportunities for such long-term returns. The next model, the group value or relational model, proposes that due process demonstrates a person’s positive and complete relationship with authority and promotes relationships within the group, and thus has implications for one’s self-esteem and identity. With procedural justice, the focus is on individual judgments of events prior to distribution. A court is considered unfair if it shows a negative relationship with authority or membership in a low-status group.
Interactional Justice and Deviance
Interactional fairness focuses on people’s perception of the quality of interpersonal treatment they receive when executing organizational decisions. The researchers initially suggested that interactional justice might be an important interpreter of employee responses to managerial judgments. However, studies have shown that in addition to person-cantered outcomes such as conflict, poor performance, and poor attitudes, interactional justice has a remarkable ability to predict behavioural outcomes, including organizational citizenship (OCB) behaviours, withdrawal, and counterproductive behaviours.
According to Bies and Moag (1986), insensitive or impersonal treatment is more likely to elicit an intense emotional and behavioural response than other forms of injustice. Violations of interpersonal justice tend to elicit the strongest emotional responses, ranging from anger to moral outrage, and revenge is usually accompanied by intense anger.
As an intermediate step between the implementation of the organizational process and the decision, interactional considerations may be more important to people in making fair judgments than the outcome or structural features of the process. For example, the systematic difference in fairness assessments of negative incidents between people who cause the negative incident and people who suffer from the incident. They found the violation of interactional justice relevant to all types of relationships. In modern organizations, the institution and its leaders own and control the most valuable resources and derive legitimate power built into the hierarchy. For this reason, employees depend more on the organization and its leaders for valuable resources than the organization of its employees.
I offer a comprehensive overview of research into the relationship between justice in organizations and deviance in the workplace. My aim is to summarize current trends in this field of research, aspects of organizational fairness such as distributive, procedural, and interactional fairness can influence employee job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour.
Despite the prevalence of structural influence in organizations, research on organizational justice and workplace deviance has largely ignored the possible effects of structure and how structure influences the relationship between organizational justice and the workplace. My model identifies a plausible mechanism for understanding deviance at work, recognizing both contextual variables and individual cognitive processes in the occurrence of deviance.
It is essential that organizations understand that workplace deviance is an organizational phenomenon. To design organizational practices that minimize destructive behaviour and improve long-term organizational and individual effectiveness, organizations must adopt a systematic approach to solving organizational justice issues. Based on a contextual framework, organizations can effectively reduce deviance by altering their structural design to respond to employee motivation and perception and go beyond efforts that merely reduce the opportunity for employees to engage in such behaviour.
I present several research methods to facilitate research into the relationship between justice and justice and explain why these avenues can increase our understanding of this topic. Certain variables, such as personality, trust, attribution, organizational structure, ethics, and national culture, have received some attention and support in judicial research. Other variables, such as judicial information and perceived helplessness, also have promising potential.
Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The journal of abnormal and social psychology, 67(5), 422.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). Academic Press.
Adams‐Roy, J., & Barling, J. (1998). Predicting the decision to confront or report sexual harassment. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 19(4), 329-336.
Allen, V., & Greenberger, D. B. (1980). Destruction and perceived control. In A. Baum, & J. Singer (Eds.), Advances in environmental psychology: Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 85-89.
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of management, 29(1), 99-118.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2001). Are flexible organizations the death knell for the future. Justice in the workplace II: From theory to practice, 229-244.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 295.
Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 89(1), 947-965.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of management review, 24(3), 452-471.
Aquino, K., Galperin, B. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2004). Social status and aggressiveness as moderators of the relationship between interactional justice and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(5), 1001-1029.
Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 43(2), 207-242.
Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioural reactions: The moderating effect of locus of control. Journal of occupational psychology, 60(3), 227-234.
Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1994). A selected bibliography of literature on revenge. Psychological Reports, 75(2), 803-811.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers′ evaluations of the” ends” and the” means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 55(1), 23-40.
Coyote, B. L., & Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory (Vol. 10). McGraw-Hill College.
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER