Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

One Justice or Two? A Model of Reconciliation of Normative Justice Theories and Empirical Research on Organizational Justice

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Management scholars and social scientists investigate dynamics of subjective fairness perceptions in the workplace under the umbrella term “organizational justice.” Philosophers and ethicists, on the other hand, think of justice as a normative requirement in societal relationships with conflicting interests. Both ways of looking at justice have neither remained fully separated nor been clearly integrated. It seems that much could be gained and learned by more closely integrating the ethical and the empirical fields of justice. On the other hand, it may simply not be possible to bridge the divide between the subjective empirical and the normative prescriptive justice as both fields pose different questions and rely on different assumptions and methods. In this paper, we propose a “reconciliation” model, as a third way of considering justice in the workplace, taking into account normative and psychological issues pertaining to justice. Through applying a reconciliation model, we provide a new way of looking at the interconnections between justice philosophy and organizational justice that could advance future research in both fields. Our model also implies that justice researchers can and should be concerned with the moral implications of their own subject of research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Here “is” refers to subjective perceptions and preferences. We do not discuss in this article how “ought” may be inferred from general and “objective” knowledge about human nature. For a fascinating classic on this question, see Fromm (1947/2003).

  2. Notice that in this literature, justice and fairness are not employed interchangeably as they are in the social science literature. An unjust process could lead to a fair outcome, but the outcome would never be just.

  3. The concepts of fairness and justice are typically used interchangeably in organizational justice research, both referring to perceptions of justice (Folger and Cropanzano 1998).

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allinson, R. E. (1995). A call for ethically-centered management. Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 73–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alzola, M. (2011). The reconciliation project: Separation and integration in business ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquinas, T. (2002). On law, morality and politics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (2000). Nicomachean ethics. The Internet Classics Archive by Daniel C. Stevenson.

  • Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (2009). Greenberg doth protest too much: Application always has been, and victims and morality always will be critical for advancing organizational justice research. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastons, M. (2008). The role of virtues in the framing of decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. New York: Hafner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blader, S. L., Wiesenfeld, B. M., Fortin, M., & Wheeler-Smith, S. L. (2013). Fairness lies in the heart of the beholder: How the social emotions of third parties influence reactions to injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 62–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brief, A. P. (2012). The good, the bad, and the ugly: What behavioural business ethics researchers ought to be studying. In D. D. Cremer & A. E. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Behavioral business ethics: Shaping an emerging field (pp. 17–46). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J. (2006). Why it’s so hard to be fair? Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 122–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N., & Foucault, M. (1974). Human nature: Justice versus power. In F. Elders (Ed.), Reflexive water: The basic concerns of mankind. London: Souvenir.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Scott, B. A. (2005a). Organizational justice: Where do we stand? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 589–619). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005b). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., Conlon, D. E., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, R., & Rupp, D. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Slaughter, J. E., & Bachiochi, P. D. (2005). Organizational justice and black applicants’ reactions to affirmative action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1168–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Organizational justice and behavioral ethics: Promises and prospects. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(2), 193–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cugueró-Escofet, N., Fortin, M., & Canela, M.-A. (2013). Righting the wrong for third parties—How monetary compensation, procedure changes and apologies can restore justice for observers of injustice. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1762-7.

  • Cugueró-Escofet, N., & Rosanas, J. M. (2013). The just design and use of management control systems as requirements for goal congruence. Management Accounting Research, 24(1), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. (1994). When integration fails: The logic of prescription and description in business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008). Meta-analytic tests of relationships between organizational justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and shared-variance models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 805–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnis, J. (1980). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Habermas and Foulcault: Thinkers for civil society? British Journal of Sociology, 49(2), 210–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In H. W. Beirhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 145–162). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 3–34). Greenwich, CT: IAP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. M. (2005). What is the relationship between justice and morality? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 215–245). Nahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2001). Fairness as a dependent variable: Why tough times can lead to bad management. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (pp. 97–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortin, M., & Fellenz, M. (2008). Hypocrisies of fairness: Towards a more reflexive ethical base in organizational justice research and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 415–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1988). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom. In J. Bernauer & D. Rasmussen (Eds.), The final Foucault. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fromm, E. (1947/2003). Man for himself. New York: Routlege.

  • Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1990a). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. Research in organizational behavior, 12, 111–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (2009). Everybody talks about organizational justice, but nobody does anything about it. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 181–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., & Bies, R. J. (1992). Establishing the role of empirical studies of organizational justice in philosophical inquiries into business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5/6), 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., & Wiethoff, C. (2001). organizational justice as proaction and reaction: Implications for research and application. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (pp. 271–302). Wahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, E. M. (2011). Virtue, profit, and the separation thesis: An Aristotelian view. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, F., & Slapnicar, S. (2007). Evaluation process justice: Relevance and consequences. SSRN, id997981.

  • Heinaman, R. (1998). Social justice in Plato’s republic. Polis: The Journal of the Society for Greek Political Thought, 15(1–2), 23–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hervada, J. (2007). Introducción crítica al derecho natural.

  • Hosmer, L. T., & Kiewitz, C. (2005). Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 67–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W., & Folger, R. (2004). Fairness and transaction costs: The contribution of organizational justice theory to an integrative model of economic organization. Organization Science, 15(6), 719–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 395–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1981). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J. (1974). Social psychology of justice and interpersonal attraction. In T. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction. New York: Academic Press.

  • Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–213). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgements as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Kray, L. J., & Thompson, L. (1998). The social construction of injustices: Fairness judgments in response to own and others’ unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Kray, L. J., & Thompson, L. (2001). Primary effects in justice judgments: Testing predications from fairness heuristic theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M. L., & Vera PArk, M. V. (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 224–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Towards a general theory of uncertainty management. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 181–223). Boston: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, (1952). The second treatise of government. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieper, J. (1972). Justicia y Fortaleza. Madrid: Ediciones Rialp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato, (2006). The republic. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (2003). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, H. O., & Ghoshal, S. (2006). Beyond self-interest revisited. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 585–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosanas, J. M. (2008). Beyond economic criteria: A humanistic approach to organizational survival. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 447–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J. (2008). Understanding the separation thesis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. J. (1982). Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. T., Matland, R. E., Michelbach, P. A., & Bornstein, B. H. (2001). Just deserts: An experimental study of distributive justice norms. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 749–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M. S. (2000). Ethical and fair work behavior: A normative-empirical dialogue concerning ethics and justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 187–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. T. (2004). Third-party reactions to employee (mis)treatment: A justice perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 183–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaemann, R. (1989). Basic moral concepts. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66(3), 541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turillo, C. J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J. J., Umphress, E., & Gee, J. (2002). Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 839–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 839–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R., & Blader, S. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., & Treviño, L. K. (1994). Normative and empirical business ethics: Separation, marriage of convenience or marriage of necessity? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 129–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zehr, H. (1998). Justice as restoration, justice as respect. The Justice Professional, 11, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IESE Business School, Universidad de Navarra, Avda Pearson, 21, 08034, Barcelona, Spain

    Natàlia Cugueró-Escofet

  2. University of Toulouse 1 Capitole, Toulouse, France

    Marion Fortin

  3. ISS International Business School of Service Management, Hamburg, Germany

    Marion Fortin

Authors
  1. Natàlia Cugueró-Escofet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marion Fortin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natàlia Cugueró-Escofet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cugueró-Escofet, N., Fortin, M. One Justice or Two? A Model of Reconciliation of Normative Justice Theories and Empirical Research on Organizational Justice. J Bus Ethics 124, 435–451 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1881-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1881-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation