Organizational justice scholars have examined the consequences and causes of employees’ fairness perceptions. Given the reliability of what is known about how, when, and why fairness perceptions matter, we can and should contribute to addressing the pressing problems of our times, regardless of whether they primarily reside within organizations (e.g., diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)) or outside of organizations (e.g., climate change, political extremism). Our focus aligns with more general calls for responsible management research (Tsui, 2022). Accordingly, we illustrate the implications of organizational justice scholarship for addressing three issues: DEI, climate change, and political extremism. We also consider some of the barriers associated with translating organizational justice theory and research to practice, offer some recommendations on how to overcome those barriers, and delineate some of the unintended consequences of our best efforts. Finally, we describe ways in which organizational justice scholars can make our knowledge more accessible in public domains.
Plain Language Summary Title: Application of Justice Theory and Research to Help Address Organizational and Societal Problems
Plain Language Summary: Given the reliability of what is known about how, when, and why fairness perceptions matter, we suggest that it is time for organizational justice scholars to use our knowledge to help address the pressing problems of our times, regardless of whether they primarily reside within organizations. Our focus aligns with more general calls for responsible management research (Tsui, 2022). Accordingly, we illustrate the implications of organizational justice scholarship for addressing three issues: diversity equity and inclusivity, climate change, and political extremism. We also consider some of the barriers associated with translating organizational justice theory and research to practice, offer some recommendations on how to overcome those barriers, and delineate some of the unintended consequences of our best efforts. Finally, we describe ways in which organizational justice scholars can make our knowledge more accessible in public domains.
BanduraA. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
3.
BianchiE. C.BrocknerJ.Van den BosK.SeifertM.MoonH.van DijkeM.De CremerD. (2015). Trust in decision-making authorities dictates the form of the interactive relationship between outcome fairness and procedural fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214556237
4.
BiesR. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 289–319.
5.
BiesR. J. (2013). The delivery of bad news in organizations: A framework for analysis. Journal of Management, 39(1), 136–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312461053
6.
BladerS. L.TylerT. R. (2015). Relational models of procedural justice. In CropanzanoR. S.AmbroseM. L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 351–369). Oxford University Press.
7.
BlauP. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
8.
BobocelD. R.Son HingL. S.DaveyL. M.StanleyD. J.ZannaM. P. (1998). Justice-based opposition to social policies: Is it genuine?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.653
9.
BrocknerJ. (2010). A contemporary look at organizational justice: Multiplying insult times injury. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
10.
BrocknerJ. (2015). The process matters: Engaging and equipping people for success. Princeton University Press.
11.
BrocknerJ.SeniorD.WelchW. (2014). Corporate volunteerism, the experience of self-integrity, and organizational commitment: Evidence from the field. Social Justice Research, 27(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0204-8
BrocknerJ.WiesenfeldB. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.189
14.
DeutschM. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000
15.
DevineP. G.ForscherP. S.AustinA. J.CoxW. T. L. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1267–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003
FlavelleC. (2021). Blocking climate plan with hometown at risk.The New York Times, October 18.
18.
FolgerR.CropanzanoR. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In GreenbergJ.CropanzanoR. (Eds.), Advances in organization justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford University Press.
GreenbergJ. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/257990
22.
GreenbergJ. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23.
HidegI.FerrisD. L. (2017). Dialectical thinking and fairness-based perspectives of affirmative action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 782–801. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000207
24.
HolmvallC. M.BobocelD. R. (2008). What fair procedures say about me: Self-construals and reactions to procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.09.001
25.
JonesD. A.SkarlickiD. P. (2013). How perceptions of fairness can change: A dynamic model of organizational justice. Organizational Psychology Review, 3(2), 138–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386612461665
LazarusR. S.FolkmanS. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
28.
LeventhalG. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In GergenK.GreenbergM.WillisR. (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). Plenum Press.
29.
LindE. A.TylerT. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum Press.
30.
MayerD. M.GreenbaumR. L.KuenziM.ShteynbergG. (2009). When do fair procedures not matter? A test of the identity violation effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013108
31.
McQueenA.KleinW. M. P. (2006). Experimental manipulations of self-affirmation: A systematic review. Self and Identity, 5(4), 289–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860600805325
32.
NishiokaM.BobocelD. R.BeckJ. W. (2023). Making sense of claims of unfairness: Third-party overall fairness perceptions negatively affect claim credibility. Manuscript under editorial review.
33.
RogelbergS. G.KingE. B.AlonsoA. (2022). How can we bring I-O psychology science and evidence-based practices to the publicIndustrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 15(2), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2021.142
34.
RozinP.RoyzmanE. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
35.
SheldonO.WiesenfeldB. M.BrocknerJ. (2023). Exploring when and why being treated fairly makes employees more likely to engage in unethical pro-organizational behavior. Manuscript under editorial review.
36.
SherfE. N.VenkataramaniV.GajendranR. S. (2019). Too busy to be fair? The effect of workload and rewards on managers’ justice rule adherence. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 469–502. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1061
37.
ShermanD. K.CohenG. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 183–242). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38004-5
38.
ShermanD. K.NelsonL. D.SteeleC. M. (2000). Do messages about health risks threaten the self? Increasing the acceptance of threatening health messages via self-affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1046–1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611003
SkarlickiD. P.LathamG. P. (2005). How can training be used to foster organizational justice? In GreenbergJ.ColquittJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 499–522). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
41.
SkitkaL. J.HoustonD. A. (2001). When due process is of no consequence: Moral mandates and presumed defendant guilt or innocence. Social Justice Research, 14(3), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014372008257
42.
SmithH. J.TylerT. R.HuoY. J.OrtizD. J.LindE. A. (1998). The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 470–493. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1360
43.
SteeleC. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 21. Social psychological studies of the self: Perspectives and programs (pp. 261–302). Academic Press.
44.
StoufferS. A.SuchmanE. A.DevinneyL. C.StarS. A.Williams Jr.R. M. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment during army life. (Studies in social psychology in World War II), Vol. 1. Princeton University Press.
TrippT. M.BiesR. J. (2009). Getting even: The truth about workplace revenge – And how to stop it. Jossey-Bass.
49.
TsuiA. S. (2022). From traditional research to responsible research: The necessity of scientific freedom and scientific responsibility for better societies. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 1–32. https://doi.org/https://doi/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-062021-021303
50.
TylerT. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 830–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.830
UmphressE. E.BinghamJ. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical proorganizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0559
53.
Van den BosK. (2018). Why people radicalize: How unfairness judgments are used to fuel radical beliefs, extremist behaviors, and terrorism. Oxford University Press.
Van den Bos, K., Bruins, J., Wilke, H. A. M., & Dronkert, E. (1999). Sometimes unfair procedures have nice aspects: On the psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.324
56.
Van den BosK.LindE. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80003-X
57.
WaltonG. M.CohenG. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198364
58.
WaltonG. M.WilsonT. D. (2018). Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychological Review, 125(5), 617–655. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1037/rev0000115
59.
WattsL. L.GrayB. E.MedeirosK. E. (2022). Side effects associated with organizational interventions: A perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 15(1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2021.93
60.
WrzesniewskiA.DuttonJ. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/14183-005
