Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 127–142 | Cite as

Why procedural justice in organizations?

  • Jerald Greenberg
  • Tom R. Tyler
Article

Abstract

This article reviews the existing research and theory on procedural justice and considers how it may be applied to the study of organizational behavior. It begins by distinguishing between the concepts of distributive justice and procedural justice and noting the historical contexts within which they emerged. Existing conceptual contributions and the research inspired by them are reviewed. The few existing studies applying procedural justice notions to organizational contexts are summarized, and the contributions of the articles to the present issue of this journal are reviewed relative to these efforts. The article closes by discussing the dual benefits of studying procedural justice in organizations: the enhanced understanding of the concept of justice and the behavior of people in organizations.

Key words

procedural justice organizational behavior social psychology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequaity.J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 67: 422–436.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, pp. 267–299.Google Scholar
  3. Adler, J. W., Hensler, D. R., and Nelson, C. E. (1983).Simple Justice: How Litigants Fare in the Pittsburgh Court Arbitration Program, Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. K., and Hayden, R. M. (1980–1981). Questions of validity and drawing conclusions from simulation studies in procedural justice.Law Soc. Rev. 15: 293–304.Google Scholar
  5. Barrett-Howard, E., and Tyler, T. R. (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50: 296–304.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (1982). The justice concept in social psychology. In Greenberg, J., and Cohen, R. L. (eds.),Equity and Justice in Social Behavior, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar
  7. Crosby, F. (1984). Relative deprivation in organizational settings. In Staw, B. M., and Cummings, L. L. (eds.),Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 6, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 51–94.Google Scholar
  8. Dalton, D. R., and Todor, W. D. (1985a). Gender and workplace justice: A field assessment.Personnel Psychol. 38: 133–151.Google Scholar
  9. Dalton, D. R., and Todor, W. D. (1985b). Composition of dyads as a factor in the outcomes of workplace justice: Two field assessments.Acad. Manag. J. 28: 704–712.Google Scholar
  10. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive justice?J. Soc. Issues 31: 137–149.Google Scholar
  11. Dipboye, R. L., and de Pontbraind, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems.J. Appl. Psychol. 66: 248–251.Google Scholar
  12. Festinger, L. (1957).A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Evanston, Row, Peterson, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  13. Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In Bierhoff, H. W., Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (eds.),Justice in Social Relations, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Folger, R., and Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In Rowland, K., and Ferris, G. (eds.),Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 141–183.Google Scholar
  15. Fry, W. R., and Cheney, G. (1981)Perceptions of procedural fairness as a function of distributive preference. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Detroit.Google Scholar
  16. Fry, W. R., and Leventhal, G. S. (1979). Cross-situational procedural preferences: A comparison of allocation preferences and equity across different social settings. In Lind, A. (Chair),The Psychology of Procedural Justice. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  17. Fuller, L. (1961). The adversary system. In Berman, H. (ed.),Talks on American Law, Vintage Books, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Greenberg, J. (1982). Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations. In Greenberg, J., and Cohen, R. L. (eds.),Equity and Justice in Social Behavior, Academic Press, New York, pp. 389–435.Google Scholar
  19. Greenberg, J. (1986a). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations.J. Appl. Psychol. 71: 340–342.Google Scholar
  20. Greenberg, J. (1986b). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair? In Lewicki, R. J., Sheppard, B. H., and Bazerman, M. (eds.),Research on Negotiation in Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich.Google Scholar
  21. Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends?J. Appl. Psychol. 72: 55–61.Google Scholar
  22. Greenberg, J., and Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In Paulus, P. B. (ed.),Basic Group Processes, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 235–256.Google Scholar
  23. Hayden, R. M., and Anderson, J. K. (1979). On the evaluation of procedural systems in laboratory experiments.Law Hum. Behav. 3: 21–33.Google Scholar
  24. Homans, G. C. (1961).Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Houlden, P. (1980–1981). Impact of procedural modifications on evaluations of plea bargaining.Law Soc. Rev. 15: 267–292.Google Scholar
  26. Ilgen, D. R., and Feldman, J. M. (1983). Performance appraisal: A process focus. In Staw, B. M., and Cummings, L. L. (eds.),Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 141–197.Google Scholar
  27. Jacques, E. (1961).Equitable Payment, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., and Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation.J. Appl. Psychol. 63: 751–754.Google Scholar
  29. Landy, F. J., Barnes-Farrell, J., and Cleveland, J. N. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up.J. Appl. Psychol. 65: 355–356.Google Scholar
  30. Leventhal, G. S. (1976a). Fairness in social relationships. In Thibaut, J. W., Spence, J. T., and Carson, R. C. (eds.),Contemporary Topics in Social Psychology, General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ, pp. 211–239.Google Scholar
  31. Leventhal, G. S. (1976b). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In Berkowitz, L., and Walster, E. (eds.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 9, Academic Press, New York, pp. 91–131.Google Scholar
  32. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Gergen, K. J., Greenberg, M. S., and Willis, R. H. (eds.),Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 27–55.Google Scholar
  33. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., and Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In Mikula, G. (ed.),Justice and Social Interaction, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 167–218.Google Scholar
  34. Lind, E. A. (1982).The social psychology of procedural justice. Paper presented at the University of North Carolina Alumni and Friends Conference, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
  35. Lind, E. A., Kurtz, S., Musante, L., Walker, L., and Thibaut, J. W. (1980). Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interest.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39: 643–653.Google Scholar
  36. Lind, E. A., Lissak, R. I., and Conlon, A. E. (1983). Decision control and process control effects on procedural fairness judgments.J. Appl. Psychol. 13: 338–350.Google Scholar
  37. Lissak, R. I. (1983).Procedural fairness: How employees evaluate procedures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign.Google Scholar
  38. Pritchard, R. A. (1969). Equity theory: A review and critique.Org. Behav. Hum. Perf. 4: 75–94.Google Scholar
  39. Reis, H. T. (1986). Levels of interest in the study of interpersonal justice. In Bierhoff, H. W., Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (eds.),Justice in Social Relations, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Ross, W. D. (1925).The Oxford Translation of Aristotle, Vol. 9: The Nichomachean Ethics, Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
  41. Thibaut, J., and Walker, L. (1975).Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  42. Thibaut, J., and Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure.Calif. Law Rev. 66: 541–566.Google Scholar
  43. Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendant's evaluations of their courtroom experience.Law Soc. Rev. 18: 51–74.Google Scholar
  44. Tyler, T. R. (1986). When does procedural justice matter in organizations? In Lewicki, R. J., Sheppard, B. H., and Bazerman, M. (eds.),Research on Negotiation in Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
  45. Tyler, T. R., and Caine, A. (1981). The role of distributional and procedural fairness in the endorsement of formal leaders.J. Pers. and Soc. Psychol. 41: 642–655.Google Scholar
  46. Tyler, T. R., and Folger, R. (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects of satisfaction with citizen-police encounters.Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1: 281–292.Google Scholar
  47. Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., and Spodick, N. (1985). The influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48: 72–81.Google Scholar
  48. Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., and McGraw, K. (1985). The influence of perceived injustice on the endorsement of political leaders.J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 15: 700–725.Google Scholar
  49. Walker, L., LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., and Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication.J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 4: 295–310.Google Scholar
  50. Walker, L., Lind, E. A., and Thibaut, J. (1979). The relation between procedural justice and distributive justice.Va. Law Rev. 65: 1401–1420.Google Scholar
  51. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., and Berscheid, E. (1978).Equity: Theory and Research Allyn & Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jerald Greenberg
    • 2
  • Tom R. Tyler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorthwestern UniversityEvanston
  2. 2.Faculty of Management and Human ResourcesThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus

Personalised recommendations