Prior studies on fairness have investigated the conditions under which either procedural or distributive justice is more important to employees. One view holds that procedural justice is more important when the outcome is group-based, and distributive justice is more important when an outcome is individual-based. The second view is that distributive justice is more important when an outcome is high or positive, and procedural justice is more important when an outcome is low or negative. This study examined of the effects of procedural and distributive justice on satisfaction with gainsharing, which involves a group-based outcome. The study was conducted with two firm, one representing a high payout conditon and one a low-and zero-bonus payment. The results suggest that level of payout is important in the determination. Implication. Implications for research had for corporate we gainsharing are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, J. S.
(1965). Inequity in social exchange In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
2.
Alexander, S.
, & Rudn, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organization behavior. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 177-198.
3.
Deutsch, M.
(1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137-149.
4.
Folger, R.
, & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel Systems. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 3, pp. 141-183). greenwich, CI: JAI.
5.
Folger, R.
, & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effect of procedural add distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
6.
Gerhart, B.
, & Milkovich, G. T. (1993). Employee compensation: Research and practice. In: M. D. Dunnette & L M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 3,pp. 481-569). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Pus.
7.
Graham-Mooe, B. E.
, & Ross, T. L. (1990). Gainsharing: Pans for improving performance. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
8.
Greenberg, I.
(1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340-342.
9.
Greenberg, J.
(1987a). Reactions to procedural justice in payment decisions: Do the means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61.
10.
Greenberg, J.
(1987b). A taxonomy of organizational justicetheories. Academy of Management Review12, 9-22.
11.
Heneman, H., G.
, & Schwab, D. P. (1985). Pay satisfaction: Its multidimensional nature and measurement. Journal of Psychology, 20, 129-141.
12.
Homans, G. C.
(1960). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace
13.
Konovsky, M. A.
, Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1987). Relative effects of procedural and distributive justice on employee attitudes. Representative Research in Journal Psychology, 17, 15-24.
14.
Leventhal, G. S.
(1976). Fairness in social relationship. JL W. T J. T. Spence, & R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 211-239), Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
15.
Lind, E A.
, & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
16.
Markham, S.E.
, Scott, D. D., & Little, B. L. (1992). National gainsharing study: The importance of industry differences. Compensation and Benefits Review, 24(1), 34-35.
17.
McFarlin, D. B.
, & Sweeney, P. O. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of son with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626-637.
18.
Miceli, M. P.
, Jung, I., Near, J. P., & Greenberg, D. B. (1991). Predictors and outcomes of reactions to pay-for-performance plans. Journal qf Applied Psychology, 76, 508-521.
19.
Miceli, M. P.
, & Lane, M. C. (1991). Antecedents of pay satisfaction: A review and extension. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 9, 235-309.
20.
O'deli, C.S.
(1981). Gainsharing, involvement, incentives, and productivity. New York: AMACOM.
21.
Podsakoff, P. M.
, & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self reports in organizational research: Problems and prospectus. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
22.
Sheppard, B. H.
(1985). Justice is no simple matter. Case for elaborating our model of procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 953-962.
23.
Sweeney, P. D.
, & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers' evaluations of the "ends" and the "means." An examination of four model of distributive and procedural justice. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23-40.
24.
Thibaut, J.
, & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R.
, & Caine, A. (1981). The role for distributional and procedural fairness in the endorsement of formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 642-655.
27.
Tyler, T. R.
, & Folger, R. (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects of satisfaction with citizen-police encounters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 281-292.
28.
Welbourne, T. M.
, Balkin, D. B., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1995). Gainsharing and mutual monitoring: A combined agency-organizational justice interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 881-899.
29.
Welbourne, T. M.
, & Cable, D. M. (1995). Group incentives and pay satisfaction: Understanding the relationship through an identity theory perspective. Human Relations, 48, 711-726.
30.
Welbourne, T. M.
, & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1995) Gainsharing: A critical review and a future research agenda. Journal of Management, 21, 557-607.
