Abstract
Injustice lies at the heart of many societal challenges. By adopting the lens of injustice, we argue that critical insights and interventions can be illuminated. We highlight the importance of healing for addressing the pain and trauma of injustice as well as the role of justice in the healing process, where it can serve as a motivating force (e.g., when people desire justice), healing salve (e.g., when people “do justice”), and desired end state (e.g., working towards a just society). In doing so, we outline how to facilitate healing from injustice and enable the transition from injustice to justice. We provide an agenda for future research that showcases the importance of further understanding the pain and trauma of injustice. We conclude with a call for scholars and practitioners to engage in courageous action to recognize the toll of injustice, promote healing, and work towards a more just society.
Concern for making life better for ordinary human beings must be the chief objective of science.
(Albert Einstein)
Joel Brockner and Ramona Bobocel (this volume) have done the field a great service in writing their paper, “How Justice Theory and Research Can Help Address Organizational and Societal Problems.” Their paper aligns with the call by Anne Tsui (2022) to management scholars to do—and apply—research responsibly. For us, they are breathing “life” into organizational justice theory, research, and practice, which, in our judgment, has lost its vitality and provocativeness that had been part of its essence when it burst onto the scholarly scene almost 50 years ago. Indeed, we resoundingly and unequivocally agree with the premise that the organizational justice literature can offer key insights that can be extrapolated to address organizational and societal issues (also see Colquitt et al., 2023; Lyubykh et al., 2022).
In a speech to the United Nations, Gary Allen (1998) noted that “our world is filled with injustice and suffering.” Indeed, injustice is at the heart of many of society's current ailments and challenges, whether it is recognizing and reconciling the toll that historical and systemic racial injustices have created, responding to calls for action to prevent the injustices that climate change is creating (and is poised to create) for people around the world, or acknowledging and managing the feelings of injustice that escalate conflict and prompt political extremism, to name a few. Consistent with advances in the justice literature that treat justice and injustice as distinct constructs (e.g., Bies, 2015; Colquitt et al., 2015; Gilliland, 2008), we extend the foundation provided by Brockner and Bobocel (this issue) by bringing injustice to the foreground to address organizational and societal issues. Said differently, justice matters—but injustice matters too, especially since injustice can create human, organizational, and social predicaments (Bies, 1987). As such, our goal is to analyze the problems identified by Brockner and Bobocel through the lens of “injustice.” By anchoring on injustice, we demonstrate how recognizing and healing from injustice is a critical step toward effectively promoting justice within organizations and society.
In taking injustice as the foundation of our analysis, we are guided by the foundational work of Edmond Cahn (1949). In his book, The Sense of Injustice, Cahn (1949) writes:
Why do we speak of the “sense of injustice” rather than the “sense of justice"? Because “justice” has been so beclouded by natural law writings that it almost inevitably brings to mind some ideal relation or static condition or set of perceptual standards, while we are concerned, on the contrary, with what is active, vital, and experiential in the reactions of human beings. Where justice is thought of in the customary manner as an ideal mode or condition, the human response will be merely contemplative, and contemplation bakes no loaves. But the response to a real or imagined instance of injustice is something quite different; it is alive with movement and warmth in the human organism. For this reason, the name “sense of injustice” seems much to be preferred. What then would be meant by “justice” in the context of the approach adopted in this book? The answer would appear to be: not a state, but a process; not a condition, but an action. “Justice,” as we shall use the term, means the active process of remedying or preventing what would arouse the sense of injustice.
Following Cahn, we begin by conceptualizing injustice as a psychological and/or social wound (also see Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009). We argue that the individual and/or collective experience of injustice not only creates psychological and social pain but it can also be traumatic. Next, we highlight how injustice contributes to society's challenges, then discuss how healing can help people move from the pain and trauma of injustice toward justice. In doing so, we argue that justice can be critical to the healing process, including serving as a motivating force (e.g., when people desire justice), as a healing salve (e.g., when people “do justice”), and as a desired end state (e.g., working toward a just society). We then outline how justice theory, practice, and interventions can facilitate healing and the movement toward justice as well as offer a research agenda that can enable scholars to further contribute toward promoting healing and enabling a more just society.
Being wounded: The pain, trauma, and politics of injustice
The human heart instinctively knows that it deserves justice.
The human heart cries out for justice. (Gary Allen)
Injustice can create psychological and/or social “wounds” (Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009; Bies & Tripp, 2002). Indeed, injustice is often described as a violation of one's dignity (Miller, 2001) and sacred sense of self (Bies, 2001) that can create “white hot and burning” pain (Mikula, 1986; Tripp & Bies, 2009). The wounds of injustice are not just painful, they can be traumatic (i.e., “an inner injury, a lasting rupture or split within the self due to difficult or hurtful events”; Maté & Maté, 2022, p. 20). Indeed, injustice is associated with trauma-related responses such as anxiety (Harlos & Pinder, 2000), insomnia (Greenberg, 2006), depression (Tepper, 2001), and post-traumatic stress disorder (Chung et al., 2015). There is also growing evidence that injustice does not just create psychological pain, but it also creates physical pain (e.g., Kivimäki et al., 2005; Michailidis & Cropley, 2018; Scott et al., 2014; Sullivan et al., 2012). Societal injustices can also create health disparities, which may then further disadvantage those at risk, making it even more difficult to manage subsequent pain by lowering physical pain thresholds (see Mathur et al., 2022).
To better understand how perceived injustice—and its pain, trauma, and politics—can shape the dynamics of addressing challenging organizational and societal problems, we examine the challenges identified by Brockner and Bobocel (this volume) though the lens of injustice.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)
Justice too long delayed is justice denied. (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)
The human experience of injustice is central to understanding the motivation for DEI. For example, historical and systemic racism in organizations and society has excluded people from achieving the positive recognition and success they deserve in the workplace and society (The Institute for Healing Justice and Equity, 2001). These injustices have been facilitated by the implicit biases of authority figures who don’t even see what they are doing and why—and by the structural barriers that unfairly exclude people from the opportunities they rightly deserve. While DEI programs and initiatives have been introduced to address specific issues (e.g., correcting under-representation in hiring practices; Konrad & Linnehan, 1999), few organizations or societal practices are taking the “necessary journey” to move from the pain of injustice to justice (Washington, 2022). However, recent high-profile examples of injustice have re-sparked, amplified, and accelerated, calls to “do justice.” For example, the murder of George Floyd and the murders of many black people, highlighted the racism and oppression of racial minorities and became the moral force motivating the “Black Lives Matter” movement. Similarly, the injustice of sexual harassment and gender inequity motivated the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements. While justice can serve as a motivating force, injustice can fuel the fire that increases the sense of urgency to address problems in organizations and society.
As Brockner and Bobocel (this volume) point out, DEI has been met with criticism, including the perception that DEI initiatives are creating injustices by violating equity and equality rules to “advantage” some people based on their characteristics (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation) and “disadvantage” others, thereby creating “reverse discrimination.” These perceived rule violations may be especially prevalent when people do not account for systemic barriers that those in the minority may have encountered (e.g., Pincus, 2003). Said differently, those who are not in the minority may believe that equity and/or equality rules are being violated—and therefore, an injustice has occurred (see Deutsch, 1975). However, those that have experienced historical and systemic bias may believe that the need rule should be applied to give them a fair chance to make the necessary journey to overcome the obstacles that they have faced (Washington, 2022). Rather than choose one rule over the other, DEI initiatives can create a “justice paradox”— in which people are treated equally, but uniquely (Bies, 2015), such that differences in barriers and advantages are acknowledged and accounted for.
Analyzing DEI challenges highlights the pain of historical and current injustices, the trauma that is perpetuated systemically, as well as the politics of justice and injustice, especially when the pain and trauma of injustice are denied by those in power or who have benefited. Indeed, there are multiple levels that need healing (Harts, 2021). First, on an individual level, there is the pain and duress that people experience by the harmful actions and inaction of others (e.g., Agbanobi & Asmelash, 2023; Hwang, 2023). Second, on an organizational or structural level, there have been systems in place that have created and perpetuated trauma (Harts, 2021; Washington, 2022). Third, the trauma in society has been historical, occurring over decades, and it still manifests itself today (The Institute for Healing Justice and Equity, 2001). Healing is needed for those who have experienced trauma—but also for those who do not realize the trauma they have caused by their actions—or inaction—or how they have benefited from historical advantages/privileges (Agbanobi & Asmelash, 2023).
Climate change
When there is anger, there is always pain underneath. (Eckhart Tolle)
The debate over climate change is not one in which people listen to each other and are open to being persuaded by arguments and evidence from the other side. No, it is a painful, often traumatic, escalating and deep emotional conflict. Anger is often the primary language spoken on both sides of the debate (McCarroll, 2022; Woodbury, 2019) and things are said and done (often on social media) that attack the identities of others, creating interactional injustice. What is truth on this issue? Both sides BELIEVE in their viewpoints. And when people believe they are right—they will say and do things that may harm others because they believe there is a moral basis for their actions. Identity politics is central for everyone in this debate. Dare we be a bit melodramatic and say it is a war? And what about the casualties and the wounds—and the deeply felt sense of injustice on both sides of the debate?
Climate change creates pain and trauma on both sides—and for the planet! There are multiple levels of pain and trauma created by the climate change debate that need healing. First, on an individual level, people are targets of hurtful, even hateful, attacks, which need healing—for people on both sides of the debate. Second, on a societal level, civil discourse and accountability have been major casualties of the differing views on climate change. Part of the vitriol likely rests with the inequalities embedded in the debate and the competing tensions that can arise from these inequalities (e.g., poor nations are often the most vulnerable to the negative impact of climate change whereas richer countries can be concerned about protecting their way of life; Althor et al., 2016). These inequalities and tensions are associated with trauma responses and eco-grief on both sides (see Holthaus, 2022). This requires healing to rebuild trust, mutual respect, community, and a shared desire to combat climate change. Indeed, interactional justice—feeling valued and respected (Bies, 2001, 2015; Bies & Moag, 1986)—can be a key salve that needs to be applied before it is too late for the planet.
Political extremism
There's battle lines being drawn. Nobody's right if everybody's wrong. (Stephen Stills)
Political extremism is often focused on “righting” perceived injustices. As noted by Jasko et al. (2020, p. 572), “perceived injustice and dishonor accorded to one's group may be a common reason why individuals who have been personally successful and prosperous may (surprisingly) radicalize.” Moreover, polarized political discourse—and the pain and trauma it creates—is also central to political extremism. In addition, social media plays a key role in creating the pain and trauma associated with political extremism (Scott et al., 2023) as do the acts of humiliation which are central to political extremism (Lindner, 2002).
Identity politics are central to political extremism. There is the formation of radicalized attitudes for political extremists in which they believe they are right. The extremists believe they need to do whatever it takes to destroy the other—because they believe they are morally right. This focuses people on trying to dominate others by humiliating, if not destroying them. These acts of humiliation focus on attacking the dignity of others, which is at the core of interactional injustice (Bies, 2001; Bies & Moag, 1986). And these attacks can create pain and trauma, even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Wingett Sanchez, 2023).
Being attacked and feeling humiliated by others is painful, creating the sense of injustice. The “loss of face” by being humiliated creates the revenge dynamic to “get even” (Bies & Tripp, 1996; Tripp & Bies, 2009). Further, leaders/people use humiliation for their power/political goals, which is referred to as “humiliation entrepreneurship” (Lindner, 2002). Destructive anger—and fear—and darker and toxic emotions—are causes and consequences of political extremism. The role of social media is key—and how it deepens one's beliefs that are already strongly held, especially since people often retreat to their silos and echo chambers (e.g., Lyubykh et al., 2022).
There are multiple levels of pain and trauma from political extremism. On an individual level, political extremism—with its misinformation, relentless criticism, and violent threats—can lead to great harm to one's mental and physical well-being (Wingett Sanchez, 2023). On a societal level, much like the climate change debate, civil discourse has become a major casualty, requiring healing to rebuild trust, respect, and community. Bridging the divide of the extremes is the key healing objective.
In the next section, we identify how people can move from the pain and trauma of organizational and societal injustices toward justice. Following Cahn, we argue that justice is the process that promotes healing by effectively acknowledging the pain and trauma created by injustice. We also expand on Cahn by illuminating how justice can serve multiple roles in this process, including motivating people, serving as a healing salve and way of moving forward, and providing people with a guiding light that can propel people toward creating a just society.
Healing from the pain of injustice: Desiring, doing, and moving toward justice
By applying the Bridges’ Transition Model (see Bridges & Bridges, 2017), we address what can be done to address and heal from injustice as well as move toward the promise of justice. In doing so, we acknowledge three assumptions. First, we recognize that organizational and societal challenges involve people—therefore addressing these challenges must also involve people, including their pain and psychological trauma as well as their psychological needs. Second, addressing organizational and societal challenges requires change. Whereas the pain of injustice is at the root of many challenges, addressing these challenges requires that steps are taken to address this injustice and move toward justice. This means that there must be change in what we are doing and/or how we are doing it. However, change can be difficult and invoke resistance because it calls into question the status quo (Jost, 2019) and is often experienced as being imposed or outside of one's control (i.e., change is “happening to us”; Bridges & Bridges, 2017). As a result, change is often viewed as “injustice” to those impacted by it.
Finally, justice can serve multiple roles in the transition process. The desire for justice is a fundamental human motive that can serve as a “functional requirement of society” and a “natural expression of human potential” (Lerner, 1975, p. 1). As such, the desire for justice can motivate people to move toward justice (Lerner, 2003). By contrast, “doing justice” can serve as a healing salve for injustice and as a critical component of how to move forward. Justice can also serve as a desired goal state toward which people can work in creating a just society. Taken together, whereas injustice can reflect an anchor that needs to be addressed, justice can be a motivator (e.g., Lerner, 1975), a healing process that soothes the pain of past injustice while paving the way forward, and as a desired outcome (e.g., Cropanzano & Ambrose, 2001).
Using the Bridges’ Transition Model, we now outline the psychological and emotional processes that unfold as people transition through three stages as they move from injustice to justice: letting go of the way things were (Stage 1), managing the uncertainty and anxiety of creating a bridge between the old and new (Stage 2), and moving toward the way that things “should” be (Stage 3).
Stage 1: Ending, losing, and letting go
The transition from injustice to justice starts with an ending—people need to identify what they are losing, grieve their losses, determine what is being left behind, and identify what they will keep as they move forward (Bridges & Bridges, 2017). Given that organizational and societal challenges can be rooted in injustice, we argue that this means ending the injustice, addressing the impact and implications of the injustice, and healing from the injustice.
Ending the injustice
To end injustice, it is critical to first identify and acknowledge what the injustice was and why it occurred. However, acknowledging and labeling injustice can be an uncomfortable experience that many would prefer to avoid. Indeed, people have psychological defense mechanisms that can prevent them from acknowledging and fully realizing the extent of injustice, especially systemic injustice. For example, studies exploring system justification tendencies have documented people's psychological need to rationalize, justify, and defend the status quo, even when the status quo is inequitable and creates unfairness (e.g., Jost & Hunyady, 2003; Jost et al., 2004). By engaging in system justification, people can reduce discomfort and anxiety while also enhancing their well-being. Although this may serve a “palliative” function, it can leave injustices unaddressed. By contrast, reducing these tendencies can enable the injustice that is embedded in systems (and that contributes to organizational and societal challenges) to be identified and acknowledged. System justification tendencies can be reduced when people have a sense of personal control, are not dependent on the system, have alternatives and/or the ability to escape, and the system is not under threat (Proudfoot & Kay, 2014). Additionally, activating system change motives may help people move away from trying to defend or maintain the status quo and toward identifying inequities as well as focusing on positive change that can address the inequities (for a discussion, see Lyubykh et al., 2022). 1
Recognizing what was lost: Addressing the impact and implications of injustice
Trauma-informed approaches to addressing systemic injustice highlight the importance of recognizing the long-term effects of systemic injustice (e.g., how a system has created an injustice and the toll that this has taken), responding to the human experience of injustice, and resisting re-traumatization (e.g., Ramasubramanian et al., 2021). This includes understanding how social institutions are creating and/or perpetuating individual and systemic injustice, taking steps to address systemic inequities, providing support to address the negative short and long-term implications of experiencing injustice, and making space for those that have been negatively impacted or marginalized by the injustice to voice their lived experiences and have those experiences affirmed and validated.
The toll of systemic injustice can be pervasive. While collective experiences of systemic injustice are often emphasized (e.g., underrepresentation), it is imperative not to lose sight of the human experience of injustice—systemic injustice impacts people. Injustice can violate people's sacred sense of self (e.g., Bies, 2001) and their most basic psychological needs (e.g., Cropanzano et al., 2001b). Injustice can also have a strong impact on identity and its associated meanings. As Clayton and Opotow (2003, p. 301) argue, “our perceptions of justice and just treatment can influence the identity attributed to the recipient of that treatment, be it ourselves or others.”
When injustice has been created by our systems, this can have meaning for those that were disadvantaged and advantaged. Transitioning from a state of injustice to justice can also shift identity-related meaning—giving rise to the need to restore or reconstruct identity-related meaning (i.e., engage in identity work; see Caza et al., 2018 for a review). For example, those that have been disadvantaged may find that affirming that one was previously excluded from the scope of justice and transitioning from injustice to justice can create shifts in meaning that can prompt them to grapple with what this change means (e.g., “who am I now” and “who are we now”). By contrast, those advantaged by the system may need to come to terms with the notion that they have been unfairly privileged and may also have contributed to, been complicit in, or complacent about the persistence of injustice. As such, they may experience complicated emotions. While they may not want to contribute to the injustice of others or be perceived as a perpetrator of injustice, they may also need to grieve the loss of privileges that they have become accustomed to receiving from an unfair system. Taken together, the impact of the injustice and what it means to transition away from injustice and toward justice can have significant implications for individuals and their relationships, which may require identity work to incorporate the change of meaning into their identity (e.g., Bataille & Vough, 2022).
Given the importance of identifying and addressing the impact and implications of injustice, it is also critical to acknowledge and give voice to those that have experienced injustice. Indeed, making assumptions about how the injustice has impacted them can give rise to misunderstandings and/or may feel like their experiences are not fully recognized. By contrast, ensuring that their voices are heard not only provides those that have been adversely impacted with the opportunity to have their lived experiences recognized, but can also serve as an important step toward re-establishing their sense of dignity. However, it is critical that people are not only provided the opportunity to voice but these voices are also heard and understood to avoid further exacerbating the injustice (e.g., Bies, 2015; Harlos, 2001; Klammer et al., 2002).
Despite the benefits of recognizing the human experience of injustice, there has been debate related to the (dis)advantages of acknowledging and giving voice to injustice. For example, climate change scholars have highlighted the benefits of voice and being heard since this can enhance a shared understanding and empower those that have been disadvantaged (e.g., MacDonald et al., 2013). By contrast, in the DEI literature, Waldman and Sparr (2023) have argued that using “woke” strategies that acknowledge injustice and give voice to those that have experienced historical injustices can encourage people to embrace and “overemphasize” their victimhood. Beyond politicizing the term “woke” (Thomason et al., 2023) and preventing dialogue that is needed to effectively promote diversity and inclusion (see Brockner & Bobocel, this volume), failing to acknowledge past injustice and provide voice to those that have experienced the injustice may further exacerbate people's sense of injustice, further violate the sacred sense of self, and also reinforce injustice in the system by continuing to silence those voices—that is, it can be re-traumatizing. Accordingly, addressing injustice is not simply about overcoming inequities (e.g., distributive injustice), but also about addressing the systems and procedures that perpetuate the injustice (e.g., procedural injustice), as well as treatment that does not uphold people's dignity (e.g., interactional injustice). Failing to “do justice” may result in lost opportunities to promote justice while also allowing injustice to persist—this not only denies justice, it may also deepen and further exacerbate injustice. Indeed, as Brockner (August 24, 2023, personal communication) noted, “the failure to address injustice is not a ‘neutral event’ in that failing to address it merely perpetuates the extant level of felt injustice. Rather the failure to address it is likely to bring about an even more negative state of affairs.” Taken together, this highlights the importance of addressing the injustice—in a timely manner that prevents the injustice from persisting and/or further worsening outcomes for those that are impacted by the injustice. For organizational and societal issues, this means that it is critical to act now, “before it is too late” (Brockner & Bobocel, this volume).
Letting go: Healing from injustice
Healing reflects “the natural movement toward wholeness … it is a direction, not a destination; a line on a map, not a dot” (Maté & Maté, 2022, p. 362). Whereas acknowledging and connecting with the original pain can promote healing (Kalsched & Sieff, 2015, p. 11), unaddressed pain can compound over time, depleting resources, undermining resilience, and making it more difficult to address future challenges (deKlerk, 2007). Indeed, failing to connect to and process the pain of injustice can lead to dysfunctional and/or pathological outcomes including post-traumatic stress disorder (deKlerk, 2007), toxins in organizational and societal systems (e.g., Frost, 2003), and societal ills as people try to cope with the pain (e.g., widespread drug addiction; Maté & Maté, 2022).
“Doing justice” in the aftermath of injustice can be a powerful facilitator of healing. For example, creating the space for voice can enable people to share the injustice and its toll, while also facilitating a shared understanding. While “there may be no such thing as ‘justice’ per se, only varying degrees of injustice” (Bies, 1987, p. 314), the act of creating space for voice and ensuring that people are heard can promote dignity and respect (i.e., interactional justice) and fulfill justice-related psychological needs (e.g., need for control, belonging, meaningfulness, or positive self-regard; Cropanzano et al., 2001). Moreover, there is some evidence that enabling those that have experienced injustice to pursue justice may facilitate natural grieving processes, even preventing the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (Choi & Cho, 2020). This suggests that “doing justice” is important not only for identifying and addressing the root causes of the injustice but also serving as a salve that can start to heal the human experience of injustice.
“Doing justice” may also promote other healing processes. For example, forgiveness can foster a sense of resolution and enable people to move past the injustice without condoning it (e.g., Bies et al., 2016; Bobocel, 2013; Brady et al., 2023). However, forgiveness only becomes a possibility once perceived threats (e.g., safety risks) and/or the injustice has been addressed (i.e., the “injustice gap” has been reduced; Barclay & Saldanha, 2015, 2016; Exline et al., 2003). Doing justice may facilitate both these components, highlighting its importance for recovery.
Stage 2: Creating the bridge between the old and the new
As people transition from the pain of injustice and prepare to move toward a new beginning, the former status quo can be called into question. The importance of creating and implementing a new beginning is also recognized. But people can also feel that they are moving into uncharted and even unsettling territory (Bridges & Bridges, 2017). This can induce anxiety and even resentment about potential change, especially since new systems, policies, and procedures may have not yet been identified, evaluated, or established. Parties must begin to come together to build a bridge from the old to the new. The question is how?
Given that creating the bridge between the old and the new can be characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and anxiety, it is critical to attend to issues related to justice and injustice. Under conditions of uncertainty, people can be especially sensitive to injustice (van den Bos, 2001). 2 By contrast, “doing justice” can allay these concerns. Indeed, Lind and van den Bos (2002, p. 195) noted that “being fairly treated is especially useful psychologically to people in uncertain circumstances … fair treatment helps people manage their uncertainty.” Justice can also foster trusting relationships, creating the conditions that can facilitate dialogue to understand the past while also identifying a vision for the future (e.g., Brockner & Bobocel, this volume; Colquitt et al., 2012). Justice can enable parties to build bridges amongst themselves which can help them work together to transition from the old to the new. This suggests that bringing people together to address organizational and societal challenges is likely to be more effective to the degree that they believe that injustice will be mitigated and justice will be promoted, including fair outcomes, procedures, and treatment as they work toward addressing challenges.
To address organizational and societal challenges, people must also be motivated to consider how to address challenges in a just and impartial way—a way that does not prioritize their own interests or unduly disadvantage others’ interests. As Lerner (2003) notes, people can be motivated to consider what is “just” rather than what is self-interested. However, power and structural advantages often contribute to the rise of inequalities and those who are in a position of power and/or structurally advantaged are likely to fear losing their status, power, and place in the system. This can motivate self-interest rather than justice. Moreover, “what is fair” often seems to depend on who is answering the question.
As people transition from the old to the new, they may benefit from counterfactual strategies that identify what would and could have been different in the past and how the future should be (e.g., Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). To answer the question of what should happen, we turn to Rawls (1971) foundational philosophical work, A Theory of Justice. Rawls argues for adopting a “veil of ignorance” in which people consider issues as well as determine the rules and structures of a just society without knowing their own social status or standing within society. This thought experiment can help people avoid bias and ensure a more equitable treatment for all involved by invoking the tendency for people to prioritize avoiding the worst of circumstances that may befall some but not others, especially since they do not know their own standing. That is, it can invoke a justice rather than self-interest motive (see Barclay et al., 2017; Lerner, 1975). As we move toward addressing challenges, it is critical to not only avoid justifying the old systems and power dynamics that gave rise to injustice, but also consider how to overcome biases and power dynamics to move forward in a more equitable, impartial, and just manner.
Stage 3: The new beginning
The Bridges’ Transition Model showcases how connecting people's personal goals and objectives to the broader change initiative can help people adopt and sustain change (Bridges & Bridges, 2017). This can include helping people develop an understanding of how they can personally contribute to supporting change and empowering them to do so. When it comes to addressing organizational and societal challenges, we argue that cultivating justice as a value, commitment, and even decision criterion can help provide people with a sense of purpose as well as guidance on how to make go-forward decisions (see Lerner, 1975). Justice can fulfill people's psychological needs (e.g., Cropanzano et al., 2001), motivate them to attend to and uphold justice (e.g., Barclay et al., 2017; Bashshur et al., 2023), and expand their scope of justice to connect them to a broader purpose and more inclusive path forward (e.g., Hafer et al., 2008). Moreover, embedding justice as a value within our systems and processes not only ensures that justice motives are activated but also that they serve as a guiding force in organizational and governmental policies and decision making. While this may seem like a minor change, the cumulative effects of this approach can be impactful. This is reflected in Jane Goodall's quote: “I like to envision the whole world as a jigsaw puzzle … if you look at the whole picture, it is overwhelming and terrifying, but if you work on your little part of the jigsaw and know that people all over the world are working on their little bits, that's what will give you hope.”
The importance of interventions: A multi-level systems approach
While tackling organizational and societal challenges can feel outside of our reach as individuals, we each have a role to play to address injustice as well as promote justice for ourselves and others. 3 Moreover, adopting a multi-level systems approach (e.g., individuals, organizations, nations) can promote change through top-down and bottom-up effects. Below, we consider some possibilities and interventions that together can address injustice as well as advance organizations and society toward a more just future.
Seeking truth and accountability
Recognizing and remedying injustice requires people to not only identify injustice but also to seek truth and accountability
Consider the role of truth and accountability for organizational and societal challenges. With respect to climate change, pervasive and significant disparities exist between those countries that have contributed the most to climate change and those that have contributed the least but often are the most negatively impacted. However, until the truth is offered and countries take accountability, it is not only difficult to fully identify and address the problem, but it is also difficult to offer an equitable solution. Similarly, political extremism is often borne out of the desire to recognize and rectify previous injustices—until the truth of the injustice is acknowledged, people will continue to fight to have “their side heard” and accountability taken. Likewise, for DEI issues, those that have benefited from privilege within the system may be reluctant to acknowledge this truth because it can call into question their standing in the system and may make them feel that they are being positioned as perpetrators of systemic injustice.
Yet, until the truth is acknowledged, it can be difficult for people to move forward. This is a key tenet of restorative justice efforts that seek to uncover pertinent facts to enable grieving, healing, and forgiveness. An example of this is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada that seeks to acknowledge and take accountability for the intergenerational trauma created by residential schools in Canada. This initiative not only enabled those that have been directly and indirectly impacted by the injustice to share their stories, but also is intended to educate people about the history and legacy of residential schools, to honor those that were impacted, identify the scope of the injustice, and bring the issues to light to prevent future injustices (see Government of Canada, 2022).
While establishing truth and accountability is imperative, this is increasingly difficult to achieve. Beyond the psychological tendency to justify the status quo (e.g., Jost, 2019), the acceptance and normalization of “alternate facts” is making it more difficult to create shared realities and/or reconcile divergent realities (see Lyubykh et al., 2022). Further, people may also be reluctant to take accountability out of fear of being “cancelled” (see Bies et al., 2022) and instead prefer to offer justifications or excuses (e.g., Shaw et al., 2003). As a result, the pain and trauma of injustice only becomes worse, leading to feelings of loneliness, hopelessness, and despair (e.g., Ozcelik & Barsade, 2018).
Given this social and political reality, what can be done to inspire and motivate people to seek the truth and take responsibility to recognize and remedy injustice? To answer that question, one must first accept the reality that, “You can’t do it alone. You won’t do it alone.” While you may stand up against injustice, “doing justice” requires political action to organize people to seek the truth and take accountability together (Alinsky, 1971). Doing justice is, in part, a political process (Bies, 1987). And thinking and acting politically against injustice can also be empowering for those experiencing the pain and trauma of injustice, which is central to healing.
But doing justice is also a healing process. And that process also requires political action to build social support and community for those who experience the pain and trauma of injustice—so that they are not alone. Social support and community-building create the structure and path for healing, which we explore in the next section.
Holding space for pain and healing
Addressing pain can provide an opportunity to transform adversity into growth and connection (e.g., Frost, 2003; Maitlis, 2020). However, people can also be reluctant to feel the brunt of the pain. As James Baldwin (1955) indicated, “one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with the pain.” Said differently, the need to process pain and create new meaning may be uncomfortable and even threaten people's sacred sense of self. This may prompt people to suppress this type of processing (e.g., Pennebaker, 1989). Yet, failing to allow pain to surface not only contributes to physical and psychological illness (e.g., Maté & Maté, 2022), but externalizing pain toward others also can continue to allow pain to escalate and may even contribute to further polarization.
This begs the question of what we can do as individuals to process the pain of injustice and move toward healing. Research has identified a number of interventions (for reviews, see Barclay & Skarlicki, 2008; Barclay & Saldanha, 2015). For example, expressive writing interventions have demonstrated that journaling about injustice can release emotion and facilitate sensemaking to promote a sense of resolution (e.g., Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009), forgiveness (e.g., Barclay & Saldanha, 2016), and resilience (e.g., Saldanha & Barclay, 2021). Expressive writing can also encourage post-traumatic growth as well as reduce physiological stress reactions to trauma-related memories, which can be especially important for managing depression and post-traumatic stress that can emerge after experiencing trauma and injustice (e.g., Ruini & Mortara, 2022; Smyth et al., 2008). Moreover, expressive writing has shown comparable effects to other psychiatric treatments while being relatively easy to self-administer (Sloan et al., 2023). Relatedly, affirming identity may reduce the felt pain of injustice (e.g., Wiesenfeld et al., 1999), creating growth narratives can incorporate adversity into people's ongoing narratives to promote positive outcomes (e.g., McAdams, 2001; Vough & Caza, 2017), and receiving support from others can facilitate posttraumatic growth (Maitlis, 2020). Additionally, wise interventions can shape subjective meaning, which can promote more constructive ways of functioning (for a review, see Brockner & Sherman, 2019) and create self-reinforcing processes (e.g., virtuous cycles; Brockner & Bobocel, this volume). Further, based on the notion that people have the need to understand, the need for self-integrity, and the need to belong, wise interventions may not only lead to healing by promoting health and reducing conflict, but may also be especially useful for shaping meaning and one's purpose to promote a long-term commitment to justice.
Beyond processing the pain and trauma of injustice, individuals may also benefit from processing the change in meaning associated with their identities and the healing process. As noted above, moving forward often means that some shift in meaning has occurred. However, people need to have a strong sense of “who they are” and “who we are” to effectively operate within their environments (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016). This suggests that creating supportive places for individuals to engage in identity work to process meaning and what transition means for their identities may be especially helpful. For example, creating “identity workspaces” can help people incorporate meaning and strengthen their identities (e.g., Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2010). Identity workspaces can also bring together others that are on the same journey to build communities of support and continue to promote justice as a collective.
Despite the importance of creating a holding space for the pain and healing of others, there is often a reluctance to do so. As noted by Brené Brown (2018, p. 139), “So often, when someone is in pain, we’re afraid to say ‘Yes, this hurts. Yes, this is a big deal. Yes, this sucks.’ We think our job is to make things better, so we minimize the pain.” However, responding with compassion can hold space for pain and healing, enabling others to voice their lived experiences and foster a greater sense of connection (e.g., Dutton et al., 2006, 2014).
Frost (2003) indicates that “toxin handlers” can also play a critical role in managing pain and promoting healing. Toxin handlers typically engage in behaviors aimed at neutralizing, dissipating, and dispersing the toxins that can build within systems while also cultivating hope and connection. For example, they may focus on listening to enable pain to surface and be processed, creating “breathing room” to hold space for others to heal, buffering pain by preventing toxins from entering into the system, extricating people from toxic situations, and transforming or altering situations to reduce toxicity. Similarly, organizational development interventions should recognize the pain and grief that is inherent in change (deKlerk, 2007). This includes acknowledging the existence of trauma, providing a safe space to express and process feelings, as well as symbolizing trauma and creating a narrative to put it into perspective.
Advocating and engaging in allyship for justice
Allyship reflects actions by members of an advantaged group to seek remedies or justice for disadvantaged groups (e.g., Radke et al., 2020). Although allyship is often associated with DEI, allyship can be useful for a range of organizational and societal challenges (e.g., countries can serve as allies for climate change or political injustices). However, not all allyship is the same. While allyship is intended to improve status or conditions for the disadvantaged group (i.e., promote justice), people may also be motivated to engage in allyship to serve their own needs, to serve others’ needs but only when the status of their own group is maintained, or to enact their moral beliefs (Radke et al., 2020). Moreover, allyship may produce dysfunctional outcomes when people assign responsibility for inequalities to minorities, fail to recognize the inequalities in the system, and suggest individualized rather than structural remedies (e.g., Nixon, 2019; Sumerau et al., 2021). Indeed, “performative” allyship may bring awareness to a societal issue and reaffirm egalitarian norms, but it is unlikely to challenge the status quo or result in substantive social change (e.g., Kutlaca & Radke, 2023). Further, similar to research showing that people can experience detrimental effects when provided with “help” in ways that threaten their self-esteem (e.g., making salient their dependence on the help-givers; Deelstra et al., 2003; Fisher et al., 1982), performative allyship may also have damaging physical and psychological consequences for members of disadvantaged groups (e.g., decreasing well-being and agency or amplifying the voices of those in the advantaged rather than disadvantaged group).
This suggests that how allyship is undertaken is critical, especially since failing to address the underlying structural inequalities and/or claiming allyship without taking action to challenge inequality may further maintain and justify inequality. Effective allyship not only involves actions to promote justice, but also actions to recognize, address, and prevent injustice, including ensuring that the voices of those that have experienced injustice are not lost or re-traumatized in the pursuit of positive social change but rather are actively heard and respected to enhance agency and ensure that the path forward is toward justice.
Challenging the status quo
Challenging the status quo is critical to overcome injustice that is embedded in our organizations, broader systems, and even society. However, people are often uncomfortable challenging the status quo (see Jost, 2019). Instead, they can seek to defend and justify the status quo, even when the system is clearly creating inequalities. While invoking system change motives can reduce the tendency for people to justify and defend the status quo (see Lyubykh et al., 2022), the question is how? A key strategy is to reduce the perceived “threat” to the system. Rather than characterizing the system as rigid and intractable, considering systems as flexible and moving toward positive change can help people focus on improving rather than defending extant systems (e.g., Proudfoot & Kay, 2014). Similarly, it can also be beneficial to frame change as being in service of and/or sanctioned by the system (e.g., Feygina et al., 2010; Friesen et al., 2019). Highlighting the objective of having a “just” system can also focus people not only on addressing injustice but moving toward a just system that promotes equality and fair treatment for its members. Said differently, it is important to ensure that injustice is not created or perpetrated by our systems as well as ensure that justice, as a value, is embedded in our system and serves as a key objective that system members are working toward.
Compassionate organizing
Compassion can also be embedded in systems by developing shared values, beliefs, norms, and practices that alleviate suffering and injustice as well as by encouraging leaders to fostering quality relationships based on compassion and fairness (e.g., Dutton et al., 2006, 2014). Further, creating structures and processes that can extract, generate, coordinate, and calibrate resources to promote compassionate responses can promote compassionate organizing not only for individuals but also the collective. Embedding compassion into the ways we organize and the systems that we create can also create opportunities to transition from injustice to justice.
While compassionate organizing often occurs at the organizational level, it is critical to understand that organizations are embedded in broader societal systems that may create barriers for compassionate organizing and that these broader societal systems may also benefit from embedding compassionate values. For example, George (2014) compellingly argued that the motives for self-interest and competition underlying American corporate capitalism are at odds with compassionate organizing. Given that people often internalize dominant beliefs and values, this may make it more difficult to encourage people to adopt compassionate values within organizations. As such, George (2014) encouraged scholars to focus on strategies to embed social welfare concerns within organizational systems and encourage organizations to “inflict the least harm and alleviate the most suffering” (p. 5). Importantly, making these changes within organizations can normalize these values and create bottom-up effects, such that organizations can exert pressures and impact societal systems (see Morgeson et al., 2015).
Overcoming identity politics and the politization of justice
Many societal challenges implicate people's identities and activate identity protection motives (see Lyubykh et al., 2022). For example, DEI initiatives and climate change can be perceived as identity-threatening when they make members of structurally advantaged groups feel like perpetrators of injustice and/or that their power and status is likely to be diminished if they address injustice. Similarly, political extremism can root people in protecting their identity and affirming their political ideologies to boost their sense of belonging (Kahan, 2015). This can encourage people to create distinctions and embrace divides between groups to affirm their own identity (e.g., Fiorina et al., 2008). However, this can contribute to tribalism and political extremism, making it more difficult to bring people together to tackle societal challenges.
These identity-based politics can be readily observed in discussions around “woke” organizations and even scholarly conversations about “woke” diversity strategies (e.g., Waldman & Sparr, 2023). As outlined by Thomason et al. (2023), politicizing the term “woke” to convey negative connotations (rather than its original meaning which is meant to reflect being alert to injustice) can prevent the types of conversations that are needed to promote justice (see Brockner & Bobocel, this volume). Given this debate, it seems prudent to also acknowledge how infusing discussions related to societal challenges with political motives may shift the conversation toward defending one's politics rather than addressing the issues at hand. This suggests that defusing identity-based dynamics and politics is critical for bringing people together to address societal challenges. Moreover, as scholars, we have a responsibility to role model these behaviors and ensure that politics do not imbue our scientific efforts.
Further, people can experience predicaments of injustice in which they may experience disagreements about the fairness of themselves and others (Bies, 1987), which can create identity-based tug-of-wars (e.g., Whiteside & Barclay, 2015) and initiate motivated cognitions in which people focus on information cues that can support their positions and ignore those information cues that may detract from it (e.g., Barclay et al., 2017; Bashshur et al., 2023). However, motivated cognition interventions can shed light on how to address these effects to bring people together. For example, activating accuracy motives can encourage people to focus on identifying the facts of the situation whereas engaging in cue elaboration and cue sharing can help build a shared reality that can promote dialogue and a common purpose (e.g., Bashshur et al., 2023; Lyubykh et al., 2022).
Reducing the scientist-practitioner divide and promoting responsible research practices
While addressing societal challenges requires individuals, organizations, and systems to take steps to address injustice and promote justice, academia can also play an influential role. As responsible research practices gain attention (e.g., Tsui, 2022), it is important to not simply study practically significant issues, but also ensure that the way we study and translate knowledge also adheres to responsible practices. For example, Hughes and Dundon (2023) argued that focusing scholars on addressing societal challenges can help make strides, but it is also important to ensure that this research brings marginalized groups into the fold to ensure that they have a voice and appropriate representation. Similarly, cultivating connections, common purpose and values, and a shared reality between scholars and practitioners can facilitate knowledge transfer whereas embedding these practices in educational endeavors can help future leaders learn the values and skills that can enable them to successfully tackle societal challenges together.
Breaking the silence: A call to courageous action
Surely, justice scholars can and should contribute to these and other conversations … before it's too late. (Edmond Cahn)
Taking the lens of injustice, our focus in this paper has been to “break the silence” about the pain and trauma of injustice. By focusing on the pain and trauma of injustice, we introduced “doing justice” as being central for healing from injustice and advancing toward a just society. We also identified new and relevant questions about the pain and trauma of injustice—and the need for healing on multiple levels—that are central to the analysis of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Climate Change, and Political Extremism. Building on this foundation, we call for scholars to engage in courageous action by focusing on the human impact of injustice in organizations and society.
People are adaptable, but they are also deformable. (Swedish aphorism)
First. when people suffer from the experience of injustice, they often say that “my manager doesn’t see me and what I am experiencing”—they feel invisible. Yet, we rarely create theory or conduct research related to this experience—indeed, there are also “invisible” topics associated with injustice, such as loneliness, silent suffering, the experience of emotional abuse, and a being a “survivor” of injustice. People want to be seen, people want to be heard, people want to be understood, people want to be respected (Bies, 2001, 2015; Bies & Moag, 1986). This is not just a justice issue; it is also a human issue.
Second, justice scholars need to view injustice as creating a “justice journey,” in which the focus is on facilitating movement from the pain and trauma of injustice to healing. In making the journey, people often express fear and hopelessness—the darker emotions of injustice—but building connection and facilitating collective healing efforts can present an opportunity to transform adversity into growth and promote the movement toward justice. The journey also raises the time dimension of healing, which raises new justice questions as well as what justice interventions might look like and how these can be best implemented in organizations and broader social systems (see Lambert et al., 2022). It also highlights the importance of recognizing that injustice, healing, and justice is a multi-level systems phenomenon. Injustice at one level may prevent healing and justice at another. Injustice and justice may have top-down and bottom-up effects (Morgeson et al., 2015). Moreover, disparate barriers and facilitators may emerge at different contextual levels, suggesting the importance of adopting a systems approach that can identify and account for these relationships (e.g., Bies et al., 2016).
Third, mental health must become a new focus of justice theory and research (cf. Colquitt et al., 2023). For, injustice causes pain and trauma, which may lead to chronic pain that impacts people's health and well-being (Kristof, 2023). This also raises the issue of the fragility of people and feelings of loneliness and despair. Interventions to create community are one set of responses to mental health concerns. In the words of Dorothy Day: “We have all known the long loneliness, and we have learned that the only solution is love and that love comes in community.”
Finally, it is critical to not only generate these evidence-based insights, but also translate them into practice to address injustice and promote justice in society. We all have responsibilities and even seemingly small steps can accumulate to make needed change (e.g., Muragishi et al., 2023). We conclude by echoing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s call to courageous action—and encouraging scholars and practitioners alike to answer this call before it is too late: We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there “is” such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
