Social Justice Research

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 161–176 | Cite as

Toward general principles of managerial fairness

  • Blair H. Sheppard
  • Roy J. Lewicki


The present study identified the principles employees use for judging a broad range of managerial actions. A cross-sectional sample of 44 executives were asked to describe recent fair and unfair treatment in seven areas of management responsibility: planning, staff development, delegating, motivating, coordinating, daily activities, and representing the organization to the public. These responses were coded to yield 16 rules guiding judgments about perceived managerial fairness. Aggregation of these rules yielded six major clusters of fairness concerns. The paper describes these clusters in detail and highlights their potential usefulness to a broader understanding of the complex nature of procedural fairness judgments in organizations.

Key words

procedural justice organizational behavior social psychology managerial decision making 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. Bies, R. J., and Moag, J. S. (1986). Broadening the domain of research on procedural justice. In Lewicki, R. J., Sheppard, B. H., and Bazerman, M. A. (eds.),Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Greenberg, J. (1986). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fiar? In Lewicki, R. J., Sheppard, B. H., and Bazerman, M. H. (eds.),Research on Negotiation in Organizations JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
  5. Homans, G. C. (1961).Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. Harcourt, Brace, New York.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Lind, E. A. (1982).The social psychology of procedural justice. Paper presented at the University of North Carolina Alumni and Friends Conference, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  8. Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager's job: Folklore and fact.Harvard Business Rev. 53(4): 49–61.Google Scholar
  9. Nisbett, R. G., and Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Psychol. Rev. 84: 235–259.Google Scholar
  10. Sheppard, B. H. (1983). Managers as inquisitors: Some lessons from the laws. In Bazerman, M. H., and Lewicki, R. J. (eds.),Negotiating in Organizations, Sage Publication, Beverly Hills, pp. 193–213.Google Scholar
  11. Thibaut, J. W., and Walker, L. (1975).Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  12. Tornow, W. W., and Pinto, P. R. (1976). The development of a managerial job taxonomy: A system for describing, classifying and evaluating executive positions.J. Appl. Psychol. 4: 410–418.Google Scholar
  13. Tyler, T. R. (1986). When does procedural justice matter in organizational settings. In Lewicki, R. J., Sheppard, B. H., and Bazerman, M. H. (ed.),Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Blair H. Sheppard
    • 2
  • Roy J. Lewicki
    • 1
  1. 1.The Ohio State UniversityColumbus
  2. 2.Fuqua School of BusinessDuke UniversityDurham

Personalised recommendations