Observers’ fairness perceptions change with contrasting information for employee reprimands (original) (raw)
Related papers
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2002
This research examines how people integrate social reports regarding another person's injustice experience into their own justice assessments. Specifically, we examine three variables-participant injustice experience, co-worker injustice severity, and prior contact with coworker's supervisor-that influence the degree to which individuals express victim empathy (acceptance of the other's injustice report) and victim derogation (assigning at least some blame to the victim) when a co-worker reports an injustice experience. We hypothesized that personal experiences with injustice would facilitate victim empathy and that the severity of a co-worker's injustice report would simultaneously lead to victim empathy and victim derogation. We hypothesized that the effect of prior contact with co-worker supervisor on justice judgments would be moderated by personal experience and the severity of the co-worker's injustice experience. Results from the experiment confirm these predictions. Ó
The role of fairness orientation and supervisor attributions in absence disciplinary decisions
Journal of Business and Psychology, 1995
The present study investigated the role of the work value of fairness and attributions regarding the causes of absence in supervisor disciplinary decisions. It was hypothesized that supervisors who valued fairness, and those who made internal attributions regarding the cause of a particular absence incident, render more severe disciplinary decisions than supervisors who value fairness less, and who make external attributions about the cause of a particular absence incident. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the degree to which supervisors valued fairness moderates the relationship between external attributions and the severity of disciplinary decisions. Using a policy capturing approach, results were consistent with predictions. Implications of the results for research and practice are discussed.
Just Feelings? The Role of Affect in the Formation of Organizational Fairness Judgments
In contrast to traditional conceptualizations of organizational justice as representing isolated judgments stemming from a "cold" rational calculus, justice judgments are instead part of a "hot" and affectively laden appraisal process, emerging over time through the interplay of work and nonwork experiences as well as through emotions and moods. The authors articulate how emotional reactions shape fairness judgments and how incidental emotional experiences and ambient moods influence the occurrence and appraisal of justice events in the workplace.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 2008
Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine whether negative emotions mediate the relationship between supervisor rudeness and subordinates' retaliatory reactions and how the reactions to supervisor rudeness differ between US Americans and Koreans and between in-group and out-group supervisors. Design/methodology/approach -A survey involving 197 employees from USA and South Korea. MANCOVA was used to analyze the data. Findings -Employees who were rudely (rather than politely) treated when receiving explanations for organizational decisions were more likely to engage in retaliation. The latter tendency was partially mediated by the negative emotions that the employees felt about their rude treatment. In addition, the rudeness-retaliation effects became stronger when the supervisor was dissimilar (rather than similar) to them, and the latter two-way interaction effect was even stronger to those who highly value vertical collectivism. Surprisingly, however, Koreans were more likely to retaliate against their supervisor rather than US Americans. Research limitations/implications -Previous scenario-based studies contrasting Koreans and US Americans have yielded findings suggesting that Koreans and US American employees may differ in their responses to supervisory rudeness. Additionally, the tendency of people to be more attracted to similar rather than dissimilar others (consistent with the similarity-attraction paradigm) suggests that the (dis)similarity of a supervisor is likely to influence the rudeness-retaliation effect. Future research needs to examine when, how, and why employees retaliate against supervisory rudeness to better understand the retaliation dynamics in organizations. Originality/value -This is the only study that has examined how, in the context of receiving rude treatment from a supervisor, retaliatory reactions by US American versus Korean employees may differ and why (i.e. via emotional mediating variables), and whether US American-Korean differences in retaliation under these circumstances are influenced by the supervisor's perceived (dis)similarity.
The Co-Construction of Moral Emotions and Employee Treatment in the Workplace
ABSTRACT This study examines the ways in which employees experience moral emotions that violate employee treatment and how employees co-construct moral emotions and subsequent expressions of dissent. This qualitative study consisted of 123 full-time employees and utilized open-coding, content analysis, constant comparison analysis, and concept mapping. The analysis revealed that employees expressed dissent laterally as a series of sensemaking processes, such as validation of feelings, moral assessments, and assessing the fear of moral transgressions. Employees also expressed dissent as a series of risk assessments that overlapped with the ways in which employees made sense of the perceived infraction. Employees’ lateral dissent expression manifested as a form of social support which occasionally led to co-rumination. Employees expressed dissent upwardly when seeking a desired action or change. Circumvention was utilized as a direct reflection to the type and degree of moral transgression related to the person responsible for the mistreatment. Results indicated that experiencing moral emotions that led to expressing dissent with a designated audience was determined by where employees were situated in the cyclical model of communicating moral emotions and in relation to the co-construction of both the infraction related to employee mistreatment and the experience of moral emotions. Results contribute to the existing body of literature on dissent and emotions. A discussion synthesizing the findings and analysis is presented, in addition to the implications for future research. KEYWORDS: Emotion, Dissent, Moral Emotions, Sensemaking, Risk-Assessment, Social Support, Co-Rumination
Research in Organizational Behavior, 2008
We assert that previous research has overlooked the pervasive ambiguity in ethical situations in organizations, as well as how people pierce through this ambiguity to realize new distinctions between right and wrong. Focusing on well-intentioned individuals who unknowingly transgress, we present a theory of how they come to recalibrate their moral judgments. We begin by discussing the composition and nature of a moral judgment. Building on this discussion, we then consider how external sanctions can be used to shift moral judgments. Finally, we posit that internal emotional responses to sanctions (namely embarrassment) will facilitate this shift by triggering a sense of moral deficiency. More specifically, we assert that embarrassment will focus the transgressor's attention on what went wrong. This reflection provides an opportunity for the recalibration of the initial moral judgment. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our theory. #