This field study considered proposed relationships between perceived procedural fairness and employee reactions to a relatively novel organizational phenomenon, electronic control systems (ECSs). In a sample (N= 151) of employees, perceptions of ECSs' procedural fairness explained variance in ECSs' satisfaction beyond that accounted for in previous studies. In turn, ECSs' satisfaction was associated with job satisfaction. Results generally show that procedural fairness, which has a history of strong relationships with important organization outcomes, enhances existing models of employee reactions to ECSs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aiello, J. R.
, DeNisi, A. S., Kirkoff, K., Shao, Y, Lund, M., & Chomiak, A. A. (1991, June). The impact of feedback and individual/group computer monitoring on work effort. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.
2.
Aiello, J. R.
, & Svec, C. M. (in press). Computer monitoring of work performance: Extending the social facilitation framework to electronic presence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
3.
Alexander, S.
, & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198.
4.
Bozeman, B.
(1987). All organizations are public: Bridging private and public organizational theories. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Chalykoff, J.
, & Kochan, T. A. (1989). Computer-aided monitoring: Its influence on employee job satisfaction and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 42, 807-834.
6.
Cohen, J.
, & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley.
7.
Folger, R. G.
, & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 3, 141-183.
8.
Folger, R. G.
, & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
9.
Folger, R. G.
, & Martin, C. L. (1986). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 531-546.
10.
Gatsonis, C.
, & Sampson, A. R. (1989). Multiple correlation: Exact power and sample size calculations. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 516-524.
11.
Grant, R. A.
(1989). Building and testing a causal model of an information technology's impact. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 173-184).
12.
Grant, R. A.
(1992). Work monitored electronically. HR Magazine, 37, 81-86.
13.
Grant, R. A.
, & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Computerized performance monitors: Factors affecting acceptance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38, 306-315.
14.
Grant, R. A.
, Higgins, C. A., & Irving, R. H. (1988). Computerized performance monitors: Are they costing you customers?Sloan Management Review, 29, 39-45.
15.
Greenberg, J.
(1986). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair?Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 25-41.
16.
Greenberg, J.
(1987). Reactions to procedural justice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends?Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61.
17.
Greenberg, J.
(1990a). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.
18.
Greenberg, J.
(1990b). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 111-157.
19.
Greenberg, J.
, & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (p. 235-256). New York: Academic Press.
20.
Griffith, T.
(1993). Teaching Big Brother to be a team player: Computer monitoring and quality. The Executive, 7, 73-80.
21.
Griffith, T.
(in press). Monitoring and performance: A comparison of computer and supervisor monitoring. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
22.
Irving, R. H.
, Higgins, C., A., & Safayeni, F. R. (1986). Computerized performance monitoring systems: Use and abuse. Communications of the ACM, 29, 794-801.
23.
Kidwell, R. E.
, & Bennett, N. (in press). Electronic surveillance as employee control: A procedural justice interpretation. Journal of High Technology Management Research.
24.
Landy, F. J.
, Barnes-Farrell, J., & Cleveland, J. N. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 355-356.
25.
Leventhal, G. S.
(1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum.
26.
Lind, E. A.
, & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
27.
Martin, C. L. (1987). Procedural and distributive justice: Effects on satisfaction and commitment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
28.
Martin, C. L.
, & Nagao, D. H. (1989). Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 72-80.
29.
Marx, G. T.
, & Sherizen, S. (1986). Monitoring on the job: How to protect privacy as well as property. Technology Review, 28, 63-72.
30.
Nebeker, D. M.
, & Tatum, B. C. (in press). The effects of computer monitoring, standards and rewards on work performance, job satisfaction and stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
31.
9to5 Working Women Education Fund
. (1990). Stories of mistrust and manipulation: The electronic monitoring of the American workforce. Cleveland, OH: Author
32.
Ottensmeyer, E. J.
, & Heroux, M. A. (1991). Ethics, public policy and managing advanced technologies: The case of electronic surveillance. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 519-526.
33.
Rainey, H. G.
, Traut, C., & Blunt, B. (1986). Reward expectancies and other work-related attitudes in public and private organizations: A review and extension. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 6, 50-72.
34.
Susser, P. A.
(1988). Electronic monitoring in the private sector: How closely should employers supervise their workers?Employee Relations Law Journal, 13, 575-598.
35.
Thibaut, J.
, & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: Psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaun.
36.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment
. (1987). The electronic supervisor: New technology, new tensions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
