In his challenge to equity theory, Leventhal argued that individuals consider other forms of fairness in social interactions, especially procedural justice. Leventhal then suggested that perceptions of procedural justice may vary according to one’s role in the organization. Within this context, this article considers if there are differences between managers’ and employees’ perceptions of procedural justice, and how any differences result in different organizational attitudes. Overall, the findings indicate that managers as a group exhibit significantly higher perceptions of procedural justice compared with employees, but differences in organizational outcomes are inconsistent and deserve further study.
AmbroseM. L.SchminkeM. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceives organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295-305.
2.
AmbroseM. L.SchminkeM. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 491-500.
3.
AshforthB. E.MaelF. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
4.
BladerS. L. (2007). What leads organizational members to collectivize? Injustice and identification as precursors of union certification. Organization Science, 18, 108-126.
5.
BladerS. L.TylerT. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445-464.
6.
BrowerR. S.AbolafiaM. Y. (1997). Bureaucratic politics: The view from below. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 305-331.
7.
BrownR. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745-778.
8.
CobbA. T.VestM.HillsF. (1997). Who delivers justice? Source perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1021-1040.
9.
Cohen-CharashY.SpectorP. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
10.
ColquittJ. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
11.
ColquittJ. A.ConlonD. E.WessonM. J.PorterC. O.NgK. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
12.
ColquittJ. A.ScottB. A.RodellJ. B.LongD. A.ZapataC. P.ConlonD. E.WessonM. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199-236.
13.
DurantR. (1995). Public policy, overhead democracy and the professional state revisited. Administration & Society, 27, 165-202.
14.
FelstinerW. L.AbelR. L.SaratA. (1980). Emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming, claiming. Law & Society Review, 15, 631-654.
15.
FolgerR.CropanzanoR. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16.
FolgerR.KonovskyM. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
17.
Giacobbe-MillerJ. (1995). A test of the group values and control models of procedural justice from the competing perspectives of labor and management. Personnel Psychology, 48, 115-142.
18.
HambrickD.FinkelsteinS. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. In StawB.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 369-406). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
19.
HoggM. A.TerryD. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.
20.
HolmvallC.BobocelD. R. (2008). What fair procedures say about me: Self-construals and reactions to procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 105, 147-168.
21.
KeyS. (2002). Perceived managerial discretion: An analysis of individual ethical intentions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14, 218-233.
22.
KorsgaardM. A.SchweigerD. M.SapienzaH. (1995). Building commitment, attachment and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 60-84.
23.
KurlandN.EganT. (1999). Private v. public perceptions of formalization, outcomes, and justice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 437-458.
24.
LeventhalG. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In GergenK.GreenbersM.WillisR. (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
25.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
26.
LongJ. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
MechanicD. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 349-364.
28.
NesbitR.NabatchiT.BinghamL. (2012). Employees, supervisors, and workplace mediation: Experiences of justice and settlement. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32, 260-287.
29.
NewswanderC. B.NewswanderL. K. (2013). Metis: Using wile and wisdom to inform administrative discretion. The American Review of Public Administration. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0275074013490991
30.
PinderC. C.HarlosK. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20, 331-369.
31.
RosenbloomD. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review, 43, 219-227.
32.
RubinE. (2009). The role of procedural justice in public personnel management: Empirical results from the Department of Defense. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 125-143.
33.
RubinE.KelloughJ. (2012). Does civil service reform affect behavior? Linking complaints, alternative personnel systems, and procedural justice perceptions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 121-142.
34.
SchminkeM.CropanzanoR.RuppD. E. (2002). Organization structure and fairness perceptions: The moderating effects of organizational level. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 881-905.
35.
ShapiroD. L.KirkmanB. L. (1999). Employees’ reaction to the change to work teams: The influence of “anticipatory” injustice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 51-66.
36.
SowaJ. E.SeldenS. C. (2003). Administrative discretion and active representation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 63, 700-710.
37.
TajfelH. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.
38.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
39.
TangiralaS.RamanujamR. (2008). Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61, 37-68.
40.
TaylorI.KellyJ. (2006). Professionals, discretion and public sector reform in the UK: Re-visiting Lipsky. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19, 629-642.
41.
TylerT. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22, 103-122.
42.
TylerT. R.BladerS. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349-361.
43.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2007). Accomplishing our mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005. Washington, DC: Author.
44.
WilliamsJ. R.LevyP. E. (2000). Investigating neglected criteria: The influence of organizational level and perceived system knowledge on appraisal reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 501-513.
