Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments (original) (raw)
Related papers
Exploring the effect of unfair work contexts on the development of fairness beliefs
2010
Moral reasoning appears at a very young age and develops through adulthood (e.g., Enright, Franklin & Mannheim, 1980). Very young children perceive that "bad" behavior has immediate negative consequences (Jose, 1991), and they first tend to allocate rewards based on self-interest, then physical characteristics, giving more to the biggest or oldest child (Damon, 1973, 1975; Enright et al., 1980; Thomson & Jones, 2005). This is called the preconventional level in Kohlberg's model of moral development (1969, 1971). Allocations change as children interact more with peers and learn to negotiate, share, have mutual respect, and understand others' perspectives (Damon, 1973, 1975; DeRemer & Gruen, 1979; Rest, 1983). During this time, strict equality in distributions occurs initially, but later, merit is used, with children allocating larger rewards to the most productive individuals (Damon, 1973, 1975). Thus, social forces help children develop what Kohlberg (1969, 1971) calls the conventional level of moral reasoning (stages 3 and 4) in which respect from others based on following social norms, rules, and laws is important. Most adults function at this level of reasoning and maintain social order without questioning it (Kohlberg, 1969, 1971). Later phases of moral reasoning (stages 5 and 6) involve more cognitive complexity (Kohlberg, 1969, 1971). In the postconventional phase, individuals recognize that compromises are sometimes needed because notions of what is just can differ since the distribution of resources and rewards can be based on a number of criteria, such as self-interest, physical characteristics, need, relationship ties, and behavior or productivity (Damon, 1973, 1975; Duetsch, 1975; Thomson & Jones, 2005). In addition, individuals recognize that maintaining the existing social order is not always beneficial and consider the rights and values that should be upheld (Kohlberg, 1969, 1971). Presumably, adults carry their current level of moral reasoning with them into the workplace, whether it be preconventional, conventional, or postconventional. Justice in the workplace has become a very active research area in recent years (Fortin & Fellenz, 2008). The early literature in this area concerned only the perceived fairness of outcomes (later termed distributive justice), and similar to the literature on moral development, it indicated that people use different criteria, including equity, equality, and need, depending on the context (Adams, 1963, 1965; Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961; Konow, 2003). Later however, it was suggested that fairness can be assessed in terms of procedures and interactions, as well as outcomes. Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of processes used to determine the awarding of outcomes, and interactional justice refers to the perceived fairness of interpersonal relations associated with the distribution of outcomes (e.g., Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Bies & Moag, 1986). Research into these additional concepts indicate that sometimes fairness is perceived when distributive or interactional justice is present although outcomes are not fairly distributed, which have been called the "fair process" and "fair information"
Fairness Heuristic Theory, the Uncertainty Management Model, and Fairness at Work
This chapter provides an overview of Fairness Heuristic Theory and the Uncertainty Management Model as they endeavor to answer the questions of when and why employees are likely to attend to fairness in the workplace. Emphasis is given to the implications of these theoretical perspectives for workplace manager–report (and leader–follower) interactions and for organizational policies. We conclude the chapter with a discussion of how these theories relate to perspectives emerging from System Justification Theory on how people construct fairness judgments and when they may be more or less likely to attend to fairness in the workplace.
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.
The Journal of applied psychology, 2014
Employees routinely make judgments of 3 kinds of justice (i.e., distributive, procedural, and interactional), yet they may lack clear information to do so. This research examines how justice judgments are formed when clear information about certain types of justice is unavailable or ambiguous. Drawing from fairness heuristic theory, as well as more general theories of cognitive heuristics, we predict that when information for 1 type of justice is unclear (i.e., low in justice clarity), people infer its fairness based on other types of justice with clear information (i.e., high in justice clarity). Results across 3 studies employing different designs (correlational vs. experimental), samples (employees vs. students), and measures (proxy vs. direct) provided support for the proposed substitutability effects, especially when inferences were based on clear interactional justice information. Moreover, we found that substitutability effects were more likely to occur when employees had hig...
Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural comparison
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2007
This study compared the cross-cultural formation and reactions toward overall fairness perception of employees from the US, China, Korea, and Japan. Distributive justice was related to overall fairness less strongly for Americans and Japanese than for Chinese and Koreans. In contrast, interactional justice was related to overall fairness more strongly for Americans and Japanese than for Chinese and Koreans. As expected, materialism seems to provide a coherent account of these cultural diVerences. In addition, overall fairness showed a stronger eVect on turnover intention for Americans than for Chinese and Koreans. For job satisfaction, the eVect of overall fairness was stronger for Americans than for Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese. Power distance seems to provide an adequate account of these cultural diVerences.
Toward understanding the psychology of reactions to perceived fairness: The role of affect intensity
Social Justice Research, 2003
In social psychology it has been argued that the importance of justice cannot be overstated. In the present paper, we ask whether this indeed is the case and, more precisely, examine when fairness is an important determinant of human reactions and when it is less significant. To this end we explore what drives people's reactions to perceived fairness and argue that although social justice research has reported effects of fairness perceptions on people's affective feelings, a close examination of the literature shows that these reactions appear less frequently and less strong than one would expect. It is proposed here that this has to do with the neglect in the social psychology of justice of an important determinant of affective reactions: individuals' propensity to react strongly or mildly toward affect-related events. As hypothesized, findings of two empirical studies show that especially people high in affect intensity show strong affective reactions following the experience of outcome fairness (Study 1) and procedural fairness (Study 2). When affect intensity is low, however, weak or no fairness effects were found, suggesting that then fairness may not be an important issue. In the discussion it is thus argued that incorporating affect intensity into the justice literature may further insights into the psychology of reactions toward fairness.
A Dynamic Approach to Fairness: Effects of Temporal Changes of Fairness Perceptions on Job Attitudes
Journal of Business and Psychology, 2013
Purpose To examine whether and how temporal changes in fairness perceptions are associated with employee attitudes beyond the influence of the current fairness perceptions. Design/Methodology/Approach A two-wave longitudinal longitudinal design was used. Data were collected from current employees across a wide variety of business organizations in Hong Kong. A total of 151 survey questionnaires were collected and used for all analyses. Findings The changes in fairness perceptions significantly explained the variance in job satisfaction beyond the current fairness perceptions. In addition, the positive changes in fairness perceptions were related to job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment more strongly than did the negative changes. Implications The results indicate that to fully understand the impact of justice perceptions, we need to consider not only the current justice perception but also the changes in fairness perceptions. Our findings are also important to developing and refining change theory by suggesting that we need to take into account the nature of the changes when examining the effects of the changes in fairness perceptions. Originality/Value This work is one of the few studies that have examined the effects of justice changes incorporating the direction of changes (i.e., the relative impact of positive vs. negative changes in fairness) on employee outcomes and how changes in fairness perceptions are associated with employee attitudes outside the United States.