Archive for justice

justice and performance appraisal

August 15, 2006 at 2:23 pm · Filed under justice, performance evaluation

Taylor, M.S., Materson, S.S., Renard, M.K., &
Tracy, K.B. 1998. Manager’s reactions to procedurally just performance management systems.

Academy of
Management Journal, 41:568-579. 

Competing hypotheses: Will managers act positively or negatively to the “due process performance management” (DPPM)?

Negative response: 1) Lissak & Sheppard, 1983. managers emphasize cost, efficiency, and informality more heavily than fairness as criteria for resolving organization conflicts. 2) Longenecker, Gionia, and Sims 1987.

 

Lissak & Sheppard, 1983. Beyond fairness: the criterion problem in research on dispute intervention. JPSP ,13:45-65.

 

Useful measurement: “tendency to distort appraisal.”—inflate because…deflate because…

 

Useful argument: Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997), if the construct being measured is sufficient narrow and ambiguous, a single item indicator can provide valid, practical and efficient measurement.

 

Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997) Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures? JAP, 82:247-252.

Leave a Comment

justice and performance appraisal

August 15, 2006 at 2:23 pm · Filed under justice, performance evaluation

Taylor, M.S., Tracy, K.B., Renard, M.K.,
Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S.J. 1995. Due process in performance appraisal: a quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40:495-523. 

The paper is mainly based on a theoretical paper, (Folger, Konovsky, & Cropanzano, 1992. A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In Staw and Cummings (eds.) Research in Organization Behavior, 13:129-177.)

 

Due process of law, (fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution) 1) adequate notice, 2)fair hearing, 3) judgment based on evidence.—Folger et al applied this idea to the appraisal system.

 

Two approaches for the psychological processes underlying procedural justice effect:

1)      Thibaut and
Walker’s (1978) “instrumental control” Parties want to improve outcomes and relationship in the dispute. Parties take a short-term view.

2)      Lind and
Tyler (1988) “relational concerns” People care about the long term relationship.

 

Leventhal’s six procedural rules affect individual’s judgment of fairness. 1)consistency, 2) bias-suppression, 3) accuracy, 4) correctability, 5)representativeness, 6) ethicality.

 

Tyer(1989)’s relational perspective, three factors of the authority or the institution-person relationship determined perception of fairness: standing, neutrality, and trust.

 

Contribution of the study: 1) quasi-experimental design, 2) reaction of the management to the due-process. –the later is examined more in 1998 paper.

 

An interesting finding is that justice affect on OCB, commitment, but not the ongoing, day-today job performance.

Leave a Comment

Fairness heuristics

July 6, 2006 at 1:54 pm · Filed under justice

literature:

Ø        Cropanzano R, Byrne ZS, Bobocel DR, Rupp DE. 2001. Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. J Vocat. Behav. 58: 164-209

Ø        Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., & Deverapark, M. V. (1993). Individual and Corporate Dispute Resolution: Using Procedural Fairness as a Decision Heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 224-251.

Ø        Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 24, pp.181-224).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ø        Kray, L. J., & Lind, E. A. (2002). The injustices of others: Social reports and the integration of others’ experiences in organizational justice judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 906-924.

Ø        Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1-60).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Ø        Lind, E. A. (2002). Fairness judgments as cognitions. In M. Ross and D. Miller (Eds.) The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 416-432). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ø        Lind, E. A., Kray, L. J., and Thompson, L. (2001). Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing predictions from fairness heuristic theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 189-210.

Ø        Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56-88). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Ø        Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., and Lind, E. A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1449–1458.

Ø        Lind, E. A., Kray, L., and Thompson, L. (1998). The social construction of injustice: Fairness judgments in response to own and others’ unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 1-22. (Named “Best Paper” in the 1998 conference program of the Conflict Management Division of the Academy of Management.)

Leave a Comment