Organizational Justice, Antecedents and outcomes

Organizational justice is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct. The four proposed components are distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice.

Types of organizational Justice:

Three main proposed components of organizational justice are distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (which includes informational and interpersonal justice).

Distributive justice
Distributive justice is conceptualized as the fairness associated with decision outcomes and distribution of resources. The outcomes or resources distributed may be tangible (e.g., pay) or intangible (e.g., praise). Perceptions of distributive justice can be fostered when outcomes are perceived to be equally applied (Adams, 1965).

Procedural justice
Procedural justice is defined as the fairness of the processes that lead to outcomes. When individuals feel that they have a voice in the process or that the process involves characteristics such as consistency, accuracy, ethicality, and lack of bias then procedural justice is enhanced (Leventhal, 1980).

Interactional justice
Interactional justice refers to the treatment that an individual receives as decisions are made and can be promoted by providing explanations for decisions and delivering the news with sensitivity and respect (Bies&Moag, 1986). A construct validation study by Colquitt (2001) suggests that interactional justice should be broken into two components: interpersonal and informational justice. Interpersonal justice refers to perceptions of respect and propriety in ones treatment while informational justice related to the adequacy of the explanations given in terms of their timeliness, specificity, and truthfulness. Interpersonal justice reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities and third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes Informational justice focuses on explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion

Roots in Equity Theory:

The idea of organizational justice stems from equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965), which posits that judgments of equity and inequity are derived from comparisons between ones self and others based on inputs and outcomes. Inputs refer to what a person perceives to contribute (e.g., knowledge and effort) while outcomes are what an individual perceives to get out of an exchange relationship (e.g., pay and recognition).

Antecedents of Org. Justice Perception: Employee participation

One antecedent to perceptions of organizational justice is the extent to which employees feel that they are involved in decision-making or other organizational procedures. Higher levels of justice are perceived when employees feel that they have input in processes than when employees do not perceive that they have the opportunity to participate (Greenberg &Folger, 1983; Bies& Shapiro,

1988). The opportunity or ability to participate in decision makin g improves an individuals perceptions of procedural justice, even when the decision is unfavorable to the individual (Bies& Shapiro, 1988).

Communication
A second antecedent to organizational justice perceptions is organizational communication with employees. Communication has been shown to be related to interpersonal and informational justice perceptions (Kernan&Hanges, 2002). The quality of communication by an organization or manager can improve justice perceptions by improving employee perceptions of manager trustworthiness and also by reducing feelings of uncertainty (Kernan&Hanges, 2002). It is important that the information provided be accurate, timely, and helpful in order for the impact on justice perceptions to be positive (Schweiger&DeNisi, 1991).

Justice climate
Perceptions of organizational justice can be influenced by others, such as co-workers and team members. Recent research suggests that team level perceptions of justice form what is called a justice climate which can impact individuals own views of justice (Li &Cropanzano, 2009). Employees working within a team may share their perceptions with one another which can lead to a shared interpretation of the fairness of events (Roberson & Colquitt, 2005). Research findings show that individuals can learn justice evaluations from team members and these can lead to homogeneity of justice perceptions within teams, creating a strong justice climate (Roberson & Colquitt, 2005). Thus, group-level perceptions of justice can be conceptualized as an antecedent to individuals justice perceptions.

Outcomes of Org. Justice Perceptions:

Employees perceptions of justice/injustice within the organization can result in a myriad of outcomes both positive and negative. Outcomes are affected by perceptions of organizational justice as a whole or by different factors of organizational justice. Commonly cited outcomes affected by organizational justice include trust, performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), absenteeism, turnover, and emotional exhaustion.

Trust
The relationship between trust and organizational justice perceptions is based on reciprocity. Trust in the organization is built from the employees belief that since current organizational decisions are fair, future organizational decisions will be fair. The continuance of employee trust in the organization and the organization continuing to meet the employees expectations of fairness creates the reciprocal relationship between trust and organizational justice (DeConick, 2010). Research has found that procedural justice is the strongest predictor of organizational trust (Hubbell &Chory-Assad, 2005; Cohen-Charash& Spector, 2001). A positive relationship between an employee and supervisor can lead to trust in the organization (Karriker& Williams, 2009).

Performance
The impact of organizational justice perceptions on performance is believed to stem from equity theory. This would suggest that when people perceive injustice they seek to restore justice. One way that employees restore justice is by altering their level of job performance. Procedural justice affects performance as a result of its impact on employee attitudes. Distributive justice affects performance when efficiency and productivity are involved (Cohen-Charash& Spector, 2001). Improving justice perceptions improves productivity and performance (Karriker& Williams, 2009).

Job satisfaction and organizational commitment

Job satisfaction was found to be positively associated with overall perceptions of organizational justice such that greater perceived injustice results in lower levels of job satisfaction and greater perceptions of justice result in higher levels of job satisfaction (Al-Zubi, 2010). Additionally, organizational commitment is related to perceptions of procedural justice such that greater perceived injustice results in diminished commitment while greater perceived justice results in increases commitment to the organization (DeConick, 2010; Cohen-Charash& Spector, 2001).

Organizational citizenship behavior

Organizational citizenship behaviors are actions that employees take to support the organization that go above and beyond the scope of their job description. OCBs are related to both procedural justice (DeConick, 2010; Cohen-Charash& Spector, 2001; Karriker& Williams, 2009) and distributive justice perceptions (Cohen-Charash& Spector, 2001; Karriker& Williams, 2009). As organizational actions and decisions are perceived as more just, employees are more likely to engage in OCBs. Karriker and Williams (2009) established that OCBs are directed toward either the supervisor or the organization depending on whether the perception of just stems from the supervisor or the organization.

Counterproductive work behaviors

Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) are intentional behaviors on the part of an or ganizational member viewed by the organization as contrary to their legitimate interests (Gruys and Sackett, 2003, p. 30). There are many reasons that explain why organizational justice can affect CWBs. Increased judgments of procedural injustice, for instance, can lead to employee unwillingness to comply with an organizations rules (Cohen-Charash& Spector, 2001) because the relationship between perceived procedural injustice and CWBs could be mediated by perceived normative conflict, i.e., the extent to which employees perceive conflict between the norms of their workgroup and the rules of the organization (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara &Verano-Tacoronte, 2007). Thus, the more perceptions of procedural injustice lead employees to perceived normative conflict, the more it is likely that CWBs occur.

Absenteeism and withdrawal

Absenteeism, or non-attendance, is another outcome of perceived injustice related to equity theory (Johns, 2001). Failure to receive a promotion is an example of a situation in which feelings of injustice may result in an employee being absent from work without reason. Johns (2001) found that when people saw both their commitment to the organization and the organizations commitment to them as high, absenteeism is diminished. Additionally, withdrawal, or leaving the organization, is a more extreme outcome stemming from the same equity theory principles. Distributive justice perceptions are most strongly related to withdrawal (Cohen-Charash& Spector, 2001).

Emotional exhaustion
Emotional exhaustion, which related to employee health and burnout, is related to overall organizational justice perceptions. As perceptions of justice increase employee health increases and burnout decreases (Liljegren& Ekberg, 2009). Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice perceptions are able to capture state specific levels of emotional exhaustion which fade over time; however, overall organizational justice perceptions give the most stable picture of the relationship between justice perceptions and emotional exhaustion over time (Liljegren& Ekberg, 2009)