In a laboratory study, 318 student participants (148 male, 169 female, and one who did not report sex; M age 25.0, SD = 6.0) in introductory organizational behavior classes responded to scenarios in which performance appraisal resulted in either employee promotion or termination. Each scenario had varying levels of three procedural justice criteria for performance appraisal. For both promotion and termination outcomes, analysis showed that, as the number of criteria increased, perceptions of procedural fairness increased. A comparison between the two outcomes showed that perceptions of fairness were significantly stronger for the promotion outcome than for termination.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderS.RudermanM. (1987) The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177–198.
2.
BalkinD. B. (1992) Managing employee separations with the reward system. Academy of Management Executive, 6, 64–69.
3.
BallG. A.TrevinoL. K.SimsH. P. (1994) Just and unjust punishment: influences on subordinate performance and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 299–322.
4.
BanduraA.CervoneD. (1983) Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017–1028.
5.
BaronR. A. (1993) Criticism (informal negative feedback) as a source of perceived unfairness in organizations: effects, mechanisms, and countermeasures. In CropanzanoR. (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: approaching fairness in human resource management. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 155–170.
6.
BiesR. J.MoagJ. S. (1986) Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness. In LewickiR. J.SheppardB. H.BazermanM. H. (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations. Vol. 1. Greenwich, MA: JAI Press. Pp. 43–55.
7.
BladerS. L.TylerT. R. (2003) What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 107–126.
8.
BretzR. D.Jr.MilkovichG. T.ReadW. (1992) The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: concerns, directions and implications. Journal of Management, 18, 321–352.
9.
BrocknerJ.GreenbergJ.BrocknerA. (1986) Layoffs, equity theory and work performance: further evidence of the impact of survivor guilt. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 373–384.
10.
ColeN. D.FlintD. H. (2004) Perceptions of distributive and procedural justice in employee benefits: flexible versus traditional benefit plans. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 19–40.
11.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
12.
CropanzanoR.FolgerR. (1989) Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: beyond equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 293–299.
13.
CropanzanoR.PreharC. A.ChenP. Y. (2002) Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group and Organizational Management, 27, 324–351.
14.
DeCremaD.van KnippenbergM.van DijkeM.BosA. E. R. (2004) How self-relevant is fair treatment? Self-esteem moderates interactional justice effects. Social Justice Research, 17, 407–419.
15.
DeutschM. (1975) Equity, equality and need: what determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.
16.
EarleyP. C.NorthcraftG. B.LeeC.LituchyT. R. (1990) Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 87–105.
17.
ErdoganB. (2002) Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 555–578.
18.
FolgerR.CropanzanoR. (1998) Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
FolgerR.KonovskyM. A. (1989) Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130.
20.
FolgerR.KonovskyM. A.CropanzanoR. (1992) A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 129–177.
21.
FryxellG. E.GordonM. E. (1989) Workplace justice and job satisfaction as predictors of satisfaction with unions and management. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 851–856.
22.
GillilandS. W. (1994) Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691–701.
23.
GillilandS. W.SchepersD. H. (2003) Why do we do the things we do: a discussion and analysis of determinants of just treatment in layoff implementation decisions. Human Resources Management Review, 13, 59–83.
24.
GreenbergJ. (1983) Equity and equality as clues to the relationship between exchange and participants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 195–196.
25.
GreenbergJ. (1986) The distributive justice of organizational performance evaluations. In BierhoffH. W.CohenR. L.GreenbergJ. (Eds.), Justice in social relations. New York: Plenum Press. Pp. 337–351.
26.
GreenbergJ. (1987) Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: do the means justify the ends?Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55–61.
27.
GreenbergJ. (1990) Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: the hidden costs of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568.
28.
KernanM. C.HangesP. J. (2002) Survivor reactions to reorganization: antecedents and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 916–928.
29.
KonovskyM. A.BrocknerJ. (1993) Managing victim and survivor layoff reactions: a procedural justice perspective. In CropanzanoR. (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: approaching fairness in human resource management. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 133–153.
30.
KonovskyM. A.FolgerR.CropanzanoR. (1987) Relative effects of procedural and distributive justice on employee attitudes. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17, 15–24.
31.
LathamG. P.LockeE. A. (1991) Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212–247.
32.
LathamG. P.SkarlickiD.IrvineD.SiegelJ. P. (1993) The increasing importance of performance appraisals to employee effectiveness in organizational settings in North America. In CooperC. L.RobertsonI. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Vol. 8. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Pp. 87–132.
33.
LemonsM. A.JonesC. A. (2001) Procedural justice in promotion decisions: using perceptions of fairness to build employee commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 268–280.
34.
LeventhalG. S. (1980) What should be done with equity theory? In GerenK. J.GreenbergM. S.WillisR. H. (Eds.), Social exchange: advances in theory and research. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 27–55.
35.
LeventhalG. S.KaruzaJ.FryW. R. (1980) Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation preferences. In MikulaG. (Ed.), Justice and social interaction. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 167–218.
36.
LevineM. J. (1975) Comparative labor relations law. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
37.
LindE. A.TylerT. R. (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
38.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (1990) A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
39.
McFarlinD. B.SweeneyP. D. (1992) Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626–637.
40.
MiceliM. P.JungI.NearJ. P. (1991) Predictors and outcomes of reactions to pay-for-performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 508–521.
41.
MishraA. K.SpreitzerG. M. (1998) Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing: the roles of trust, empowerment, justice and work redesign. Academy of Management Review, 23, 567–588.
42.
NathanB. R.MohrmanA. H.Jr.MillimanJ. (1991) Interpersonal relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: a longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 352–369.
43.
SkitkaL. J.WinquistJ.HutchinsonS. (2003) Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research, 16, 309–341.
44.
StevensJ. (1986) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
45.
ThibautJ.WalkerL. (1975) Procedural justice: a psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
46.
TylerT. R.CaineA. (1981) The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 642–655.
47.
Van den BosK.LindE. A.VermuntR.WilkeH. A. M. (1997) How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034–1046.
48.
WernerJ. M.BolinoM. C. (1997) Explaining U.S. courts of appeals decisions involving performance appraisal: accuracy, fairness, and validation. Personnel Psychology, 50, 1–24.
49.
WiesenfeldB. M.BrocknerJ.MartinC. (1999) A self-affirmation analysis of survivors' reactions to unfair organizational downsizings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 441–460.
50.
WiesenfeldB. M.BrocknerJ.ThibautV. (2000) Procedural fairness, managers' self-esteem and managerial behaviors following a layoff. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 1–32.
