Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 239–263 | Cite as

Resolving the justice dilemma by improving the outcomes: The case of employee drug screening

  • Russell Cropanzano
  • Mary A. Konovsky
Full Articles

Abstract

In this paper we seek to accomplish two objectives. First, we review and describe a phenomenon we call the justice dilemma. We argue that workers often perceive valid assessment practices to be unfair. By using these techniques, employers risk incurring hidden costs that are associated with perceived injustice. Thus, it is sometimes impractical to utilize an assessment technique even though the procedure has good validity evidence. Our second purpose is to propose and test one way that organizations can resolve the justice dilemma. We do this in the context of workplace drug screening. We argue that employees are often more tolerant of controversial assessment techniques to the extent that these procedures do not result in particularly negative outcomes. In a field study examining employee reactions to a drug screening program, this proposition was generally supported.

Keywords

Social Psychology Field Study Screening Program Social Issue Drug Screening 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Backer, T. E., & O'Hara, K. B. (1991).Organizational change and drug-free workplaces. New York: Quorum.Google Scholar
  2. Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 289–319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts.Social Justice Research, 1, 199–218.Google Scholar
  4. Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal accounts and managing organizational conflicts: Is it enough to say its not my fault?Communications Research, 15, 381–399.Google Scholar
  5. Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C., & Bies, R. J. (1994). Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome severity on victims and survivors of job loss.Academy of Management Journal, 37, 397–409.Google Scholar
  6. Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1985). Models for the sequential construction of accounting episodes: Situational and interactional constraints on message selection and evaluation. In R. Street & J. Capella (Eds.),Sequence and pattern in communicative behavior (pp. 50–69). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  7. Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1989). A model of employee responses to drug-testing.Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 2, 173–190Google Scholar
  8. Crant, J. M. & Bateman, T. S. (1990). An experimental test of the impact of drug-testing programs on potential job applicants' attitudes and intentions.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 127–131.Google Scholar
  9. Cropanzano, R. (1994). The justice dilemma in employee selection: Some reflections on the trade-offs between fairness and validity.The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 31(3), 90–93.Google Scholar
  10. Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. (1989). Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: beyond equity theory.Journal of Applied Psychology 74, 293–299.Google Scholar
  11. Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. (1991). Procedural justice and worker motivation. In R. M. Steers & L. W. Porter (Eds.),Motivation and work behavior (5th, pp. 131–143). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Cropanzano, R., & Hunsberger, H. (1994, April).The justice dilemma in employee selection: Some reflections on the trade-offs between social justice and statistical validity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  13. Cropanzano, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1992).Drug testing practices as determinants of employee fairness perceptions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
  14. Cropanzano, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Drug use and its implications for employee drug testing. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.),Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 11, pp. 207–257). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cropanzano, R., & Randall, M. L. (in press). Advance notice as a means of reducing relative deprivation.Social Justice Research.Google Scholar
  16. Faden, R. R., & Kass, N. E. (1993). Genetic screening technology: Ethical issues in access to tests by employers and health insurace companies.Journal of Social Issues, 49, 75–88.Google Scholar
  17. Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.),Justice in social relations (pp. 145–162). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  18. Folger, R., & Martin, C. (1986). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice effects.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 532–546.Google Scholar
  19. Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., & Robinson, T. (1983). Relative deprivation and procedural justifications.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 172–184.Google Scholar
  20. Fryxell, G. E., & Gordon, M. E. (1989). Workplace justice and job satisfaction as predictors of satisfaction with unions and management.Academy of Management Journal, 32, 851–866.Google Scholar
  21. Garland, H., Giacobbe, J., & French, J. L. (1989). Attitudes toward employee and employer rights in the workplace.Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 49–59.Google Scholar
  22. Gilliland, S. W. (1993a). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perceptive.Academy of Management Review, 18, 694–734.Google Scholar
  23. Gilliland, S. W. (1993b, April).Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1987). Dimensions and characteristics of personnel manager perceptions of effective drug-testing programs.Personnel Psychology, 40, 745–763.Google Scholar
  25. Gordon, M. E., & Fryxell, G. E. (1993) The role of interpersonal justice in organizational grievance systems. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.),Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 231–255). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow.Journal of Management, 16, 399–432.Google Scholar
  27. Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.),Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Harland, L. K., & Biasotto, M. M. (1993, August). An evaluation of the procedural fairness of personality tests. In M. A. Ambrose (Chair),Procedural Justice. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  29. Harris, M. M., Dworkin, J. B., Park, J. (1990). Preemployment screening procedures: How human resource managers perceive them.Journal of Business and Psychology, 4, 279–292.Google Scholar
  30. Herriot, P. (1989). Selection as a social process. In M. Smith & I. T. Robertson (Eds.),Advances in selection and assessment (pp. 171–187). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Hoffman, A., & Silvers, J. (1987).Steal this urine test: Fighting drug hysteria in America. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  32. Huffcutt, A. I., & Woehr, D. J. (1992, May).A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between employment interview validity and degree of structure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. May, 1992, Montreal, Quebec.Google Scholar
  33. Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.Google Scholar
  34. James, K. & Cropanzano, R. (1990). Focus of attention and locus of control as moderators of fraternal justice effects.Social Justice Research, 4, 169–185.Google Scholar
  35. Kluger, A. N., & Rothstein, H. R. (1991, April). The influence of selection test type on applicant reactions to employment testing. In R. R. Reilly (Chair),Perceived validity of selection procedures: Implications for organizations. Symposium conducted at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Saint Louis, MO.Google Scholar
  36. Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). The perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698–707.Google Scholar
  37. Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1993). Justice considerations in employee drug testing. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.),Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 171–192). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988).The Social Psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  39. Markham, W. T., Harlan, S. L., & Hackett, E. J. (1987). Promotion opportunity in organizations: Causes and consequences. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.),Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 5, pp. 223–287). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  40. McEnrue, M. P. (1989). The perceived fairness of managerial promotion practices.Human Relations, 42, 815–827.Google Scholar
  41. Murphy, K. R., Thornton, G. C., III, & Prue, K. (1991). Influence of job characteristics on the acceptability of employee drug testing.Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 447–453.Google Scholar
  42. Murphy, K. R., Thornton, G. C., III, & Reynolds, D. H. (1990). College students' attitudes toward employee drug testing procedures.Personnel Psychology, 43, 615–631.Google Scholar
  43. Normand, J., Salyards, S. D., & Mahoney, J. J. (1990). An evaluation of preemployment drug testing.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 629–639.Google Scholar
  44. Rapoport, J. D., & Zevnih, B. L. P. (1994).The employee strikes back! New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar
  45. Reilly, R. R., & Chao, G. T. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection procedures.Personnel Psychology, 35, 1–61.Google Scholar
  46. Robertson, I. T., & Kandola, R. S. (1982). Work sample tests: Validity, adverse impact and applicant reactions.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 171–183.Google Scholar
  47. Robertson, I. T., & Makin, P. J. (1986). Management selection in Britain: A survey and critique.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 45–57.Google Scholar
  48. Rosse, J. G., Ringer, R. C., & Miller, J. L. (1992, August).Personality and drug testing: An exploration of the perceived fairness of alternatives to urinalysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
  49. Rynes, S. L., & Connerley, M. L. (1993). Applicant reactions to alternative selection procedures.Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 261–277.Google Scholar
  50. Schein, V. E. (1977). Invasion of privacy and personnel psychology: The need for a broader perspective.Journal of Social Issues, 33, 154–168.Google Scholar
  51. Schuler, H. (1993). Social validity of selection situations: A concept and some empirical results. In H. Schuler, J. L. Farr, & M. Smith (Eds.),Personal selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 11–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A., & Kirsch, M. (1984). Metaanalysis of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics.Personnel Psychology, 37, 407–422.Google Scholar
  53. Shapiro, D. L. (1993). Reconciling theoretical differences among procedural justice researchers by re-evaluating what it means to have one's views “considered”: Implications for third-party managers. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.),Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 51–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. (in press). Explanations: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy?Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.Google Scholar
  55. Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. (1993) Applicant reactions to selection procedures.Personnel Psychology, 46, 49–76.Google Scholar
  56. Stoffey, R. W., Millsap, R. E., Smither, J. W., & Reilly, R. R. (1991, April). The influence of selection procedures on attitudes about the organization and job pursuit intentions. In R. R. Reilly (Chair),Perceived validity of selection procedures: Implications for organizations. Symposium conducted at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Saint Louis, MO.Google Scholar
  57. Stone, D. L., & Bommer, W. (1990, August).Effects of drug testing selection method and justification provided for the test on reactions to drug testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  58. Stone, D. L., & Bowden, C. (1989). Effects of job applicant drug testing practices on reactions to drug testing. In F. Hoy (Ed.),Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings (pp. 190–195).Google Scholar
  59. Stone, D. L., & Kotch, D. A. (1989). Individuals' attitudes toward organizational drug testing policies and practices.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 518–521.Google Scholar
  60. Stone, D. L., & Vine, P. L. (1989, April).Some procedural determinants of attitudes toward drug testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  61. Taylor, D. M., Moghaddam, F. M., Gamble, I., & Zellerer, E. (1987). Disadvantaged group responses to perceived inequality: From passive acceptance to collective action.Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 259–272.Google Scholar
  62. Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analysis.Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742.Google Scholar
  63. Thornton, G. C., III. (1992).Assessment centers in human resource management. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  64. Thornton, G. C., III. (1993). The effect of selection practices on applicants' perceptions of organizational characteristics. In H. Schuler, J. L. Farr, & M. Smith (Eds.),Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 57–69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  65. Thornton, G. C., III., & Byham, W. C. (1982).Assessment centers and managerial performance. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  66. Tolchinsky, P. D., McCuddy, M. K., Adams, J., Ganster, D. C., Woodman, R. W., & Fromkin, H. L. (1981). Employee perceptions of invasion of privacy: A field simulation experiment.Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 308–313.Google Scholar
  67. Zwerling, C., Ryan, J. & Orav, E. J. (1990). The efficacy of preemployment drug screening for marijuana and cocaine in predicting employment outcome.Journal of the American Medical Association, 264, 2639–2643.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Russell Cropanzano
    • 2
  • Mary A. Konovsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Tulane UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Psychology DepartmentColorado State UniversityFort Collins

Personalised recommendations