No one likes to be taken advantage of.
Evidence of oppression is narrated in history books, as well as the corresponding struggles for emancipation. From the brutal conquests in millennia past to the shameful stains of slavery, racism and modern-day discrimination — we will muster the courage to fight injustice.
And we carry this torch for fair treatment right into the workplace.
It’s no wonder that in the field of organisational behavioural science, researchers find organisational justice intriguing, particularly because of the moves people will make to correct perceived injustice.
Simply put, organisational justice is concerned with the perceptions of fairness of employees. Since such perceptions shape the attitudes and behaviour of workers, this theme has become crucial in understanding specific negative actions displayed by aggrieved workers.
And we carry this torch for fair treatment right into the workplace.
It’s no wonder that in the field of organisational behavioural science, researchers find organisational justice intriguing, particularly because of the moves people will make to correct perceived injustice.
Simply put, organisational justice is concerned with the perceptions of fairness of employees. Since such perceptions shape the attitudes and behaviour of workers, this theme has become crucial in understanding specific negative actions displayed by aggrieved workers.
Types of organisational justice
Literature from researchers in the field has listed two, three and even four models/components of organisational justice. However, the three main types are distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice.
1) Distributive justice
This refers to the outcomes of a decision, i.e., the fairness of the ends achieved.
One helpful construct to understand distributive justice at the workplace is Adam’s Equity Theory (1963). It advocates comparing the ratio of an individual’s outcome to inputs with the ratio of outcome to inputs of the comparison other. In essence, equity is achieved when:
Op = Oq
__ __
__ __
Ip Iq
(Whereby O represents output; p represents the individual; I represents input, and q represents the comparison other).
According to Mowday (1996), it’s irrelevant if the individual produces high inputs (whatever contributions he/she gives to the organisation, such as time, knowledge, and skills) and receives low outcomes (whatever he/she receives from the organisation, such as pay, perks, and appreciation) as long as his/her ratio is identical to the comparison other (colleague). When the ratio is different, inequity arises, and the individual perceives his/her outcome as unfair.
Now what becomes interesting is what the worker does to restore equity. Adams (1963) described six methods he/she could use:
– alter inputs
– alter outcomes
– change comparison other
– take actions to change inputs or outcomes of comparison other
– distort inputs or outcomes
– leave the field (turnover)
This Theory is critical because it suggests that the motivation to restore fairness leads workers who perceive distributive inequity to engage in attitudes and behaviours that may negatively impact an organisation. They could use acts of retaliation like slowdowns as a way of lowering their inputs that may accompany underpayment. (Cropanzano & Folger, 1996).
However, it’s more difficult for the individual to alter the inputs or outputs of the comparison other to restore a state of equity. Therefore, Raja (2009) suggested that the employee might change his/her inputs or outputs first by:
However, it’s more difficult for the individual to alter the inputs or outputs of the comparison other to restore a state of equity. Therefore, Raja (2009) suggested that the employee might change his/her inputs or outputs first by:
– changing the input to match outcomes such as leaving early or slacking off
– changing the outcomes to match inputs such as asking for a pay increase or stealing
– withdrawing, such as tardiness or turnover
Nevertheless, organisations should focus on the critical dilemma of who gets what vis-à-vis rewards. This issue becomes pertinent in organisation-wide changes such as layoffs, mergers, and acquisitions. To solve this problem, Levanthal (1976) suggests that a distribution rule of allocation be based on equity (contributions), equality, and need.
Distributive justice is vital in the workplace because it predicts satisfaction with perceived outcomes (Folger, 1987). It also provides a motivational force for the employee who perceives distributive injustice (inequity) to act in destructive behaviours that harm other people, their property, or sources of livelihood. (Cropanzano & Folger, 1996).
Now distributive justice doesn’t ‘happen’ in a vacuum. Its effect on employees’ behaviours is best understood when you consider the procedures that led to the outcomes in the first place — procedural justice.
2) Procedural justice
Procedural justice is concerned with the fairness of the processes by which a decision is made.
It’s essential during an organisational change such as downsizing because employees can’t often get what they want. In such a scenario, the fairness of the procedures taken may be more important in predicting the behaviours of employees — rather than whether the staff received what they considered fair in relation to their contributions to the company (distributive justice implications).
Levanthal (1980) identified six criteria that managers should adhere to so that procedures can be perceived as fair:
– consistency
– bias suppression
– accuracy of information
– correctability
– representativeness (i.e., ‘voice’)
– ethicality
Negative indications of the criteria above lead the worker to perceive that procedures taken regarding decisions are unfair. Cropanzano & Folger (1996) explained that procedural injustice undermined loyalty to the institution and its appointed representatives. Moreover, Blader & Tyler (2000), drawing on evidence from various researchers, reported that procedural justice was an essential predictor of the following:
– a commitment to the organisation
– the effort employees put into duties
– the likelihood that workers will stay in the organisation
– the extent of ‘extra-role behaviour’ they display (i.e., desirable actions not inherent in their job descriptions)
– the acceptance of and compliance with organisational rules
Interestingly, researchers in the 80s and 90s recorded some results about the interactions between distributive justice and procedural justice. Two of their most relevant findings are highlighted below:
A) If employees perceived the procedures as fair, even if the distribution was inequitable (i.e., outcomes are unfavourable) they were less inclined to take destructive actions against those in authority. (Folger & Greenberg, 1985; Lind & Tyler, 1988; and Cropanzano & Folger, 1996).
B) Employees were more likely to react vigorously when both the outcomes were unfavourable, and the procedures that led to those outcomes were unfair. Tyler et al. (1987) stated that such development led to reduced performance. Furthermore, employees were more likely to organise collective action against the individuals who wronged them.
A real eye-opener.
But in what manner should employees be treated and how should communication be handled for their welfare? Interactional justice helps managers understand interpersonal relations at the workplace.
3) Interactional justice
This type refers to the fairness of interpersonal treatment. Bies & Moag (1986) advised that such fairness should be based on four criteria:
– truthfulness
– respect
– propriety of questions
– justification
They explained that negative angles to those criteria communicated to the employee that he/she has been unfairly treated on an interpersonal level.
Interactional justice is also essential during change programmes because of the social accounts provided. For example, adequate justification may help reduce moral outrage that leads to negative behaviours. It also maintains a more positive image of the leader and better supervisor-subordinate relations (Cobb et al. 1995). There’s an additional motivation for ensuring that employees are treated with professional courtesy. Cobb & Wooten (1998) explained that social accounts help reduce dysfunctional attitudes and behaviours following disappointing decisions and may even provide the motivation for change.
Perhaps one of the most compelling findings about interactional justice was given by Blader & Tyler (2000). They linked interactional justice to affective commitment, the strongest type of commitment — which is the emotional attachment to an organisation.
Conclusion
The three types of justice are best understood when they interact with each other rather than in isolation. They influence, and in some cases, predict the attitudes and behaviours of employees in the organisation.
In recent times, extensive research in organisational justice has provided new angles to this crucial management issue. However, one irrefutable fact, backed by numerous studies in organisational behavioural science is worth highlighting:
When employees perceive that they’re unfairly treated, they’ll display negative attitudes or engage in destructive behaviours that will have dire effects on the organisation. Unfair treatment includes unfavourable outcomes from their employer, unfair procedures used to determine those outcomes or poor interpersonal treatment.
Remember that the productivity wheel cannot function effectively without committed, engaged employees.
Know that organisational justice shapes employees’ perceptions, which impacts everything at work.
So, which would your organisation rather be? A productive work environment where fairness is championed, or the alternative — a sinking ship?
——————————————-
N.B- First image courtesy of Winnond via freedigitalphotos.net. Second, third and fifth images courtesy of Stuart Miles via freedigitalphotos.net. Fourth image courtesy of David Castillo Dominici via freedigitalphotos.net.
Thank you for your comment, Abraham. Fairness at work really sets the tone for either productivity or employee disengagement.
Lucille,
Indeed, that is exactly what many managers and business owners lack. They seems to pay much attention to persons who can gossip so much about others, and such behaviour retired every business progress. There is the need to understand every employee cultural background, whiles they also learn to incorporate their cultures to the business type of culture. Overall, employee fair treatment is not effectiveness instead efficiency.