The Relationship between Perceived Organizational Justice and..I
The Relationship between Perceived Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A review of the literature
Richard Koopmann Jr.
Applied Psychology, M.S.
Advised by Dr. Richard Tafalla
Abstract
Perceived organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors have frequently been studied separately (e.g., Sheppard, Lewick, & Minton, 1992; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Allen & Rush, 1998; and Chen, Hui, & Sego 1998), as well as in conjunction with each other (e.g., Ball, Trevino, & Sims 1994; and Moorman 1991). The current review of the literature condenses the findings of these and other studies, working first with perceived justice, then with citizenship behaviors, and ending on the connection between the two areas.
Perceived Organizational Justice
By definition, Perceived Organizational Justice (POJ) is subjective; we tend to compare our state with the state of those around us (e.g., input to output ratio, pay increases, and punishment severity). Ortiz (1999) traces justice theory back to Adams’ 1965 equity theory. Theequity theory states that people assign values to their inputs on a job and the outputs they receive from their job. These values are used to calculate a ratio (input to output). This ratio is then compared with the input to output ratio of a referent (someone the employee sees having similar skills, tenure, and so forth). If the ratios are equitable, there is no reason for grievances; however, this is not the case if the referents ratio is smaller (their inputs are outweighed by their outputs). For example, if an employee’s ratio was 10:10 and the referent’s ratio was 15:15, the ratios are equitable; if, however, the employee’s ratio was 10:10 and the referent’s ratio was 10:15, the employee would feel under-rewarded (underpaid) for their inputs and would eventually adjust their inputs accordingly (reduce their inputs). If the employee’s ratio was smaller than the referent’s ratio (e.g., 10:15 vs. 10:10), the employee may engage in additional inputs to settle the dissonance.
Muchinsky (2000) makes the case that POJ can be differentiated into two types of
justices (procedural and distributive) as well as two means, or focuses of actions (structural and social), which will be discussed later.
Types of Justice
Distributive Justice
Distributive justice involves the receiver’s views on how their outcome compares to a
referent’s outcome, the outcome of another employees. Organ (1988) asserts, “Debates about the criteria—such as status, seniority, productivity, effort, and need—that should determine salary … have to do with distributive justice” (p. 64, emphasis added). In this illustrative example, Organ alluded to the three rules of distribution, a further division of distributive justice: Equity,Equality, and Need.
Equity rule of distribution. This rule is based on the idea that rewards should be
contingent upon the level of contribution. If one person works full-time, they deserve greater compensation than someone who only works part-time, if all other aspects are equal. The fulltime employee would likely feel that the employer violated the equity rule if they found out that a part-time employee earned more money than they did.
Equality rule of distribution. The Equality rule states that all people, regardless of
individual characteristics (such as, sex, ability, and race), should have an equal opportunity for attaining rewards. Even the briefest glance at this rule should cause alarm: people would get rewarded regardless of whether or not they do the job, let alone do it satisfactorily. Since it is ineffective to blindly reward people for random behaviors, this rule is rarely used in practice; instead, a modified version is used: rewards are based first on some important measure (e.g., ability, knowledge, production), then equally distributed . For example, if there were two supervisor openings, the CEO may choose to promote (or hire) one male and an equally qualified female. If there are several equally qualified applicants for the position, half male and half female, and the CEO chooses two women to fill the job, the rejected males would feel that the equality rule was broken.
Need rule of distribution. The final rule is rooted in the notion that less well to do people deserve (i.e., need) the rewards more than other, more fortunate people. For example, if all other things were equal, a single mother of two would deserve a pay increase more than someone with no children in a double income home. Should the single mother of two not get the increase, she is likely to feel that the company has broken the need rule of distribution.
Procedural Justice
Procedural justice deals with the procedures that the organization uses to come to a decision. Organ (1988) refers to this type of justice as the way in which an organization applies the relevant criteria to arrive at a decision. Muchinsky (2000) argued that a decision is procedurally just if it is consistent, “without personal bias, with as much accurate information as possible, and with an outcome that could be modified” (p. 277). Consider two individuals, identical in every job-relevant aspect. Suppose they were both up for their performance review, which is the company’s basis for pay increase. If one received a greater increase than the other, the recipient of the lesser would view the procedure as unjust. The recipient of the higher increase may also view the procedures as unjust, but would probably be less apt to raise any grievances.
Means
Structural Means
Methods that deal with the context of the interaction are said to be structural in nature.
An action is structurally just if the methods used adhere to some prevailing rule of justice, for example, the three rules of distribution (Muchinsky, 2000).
Social Means
Social methods, on the other hand, deal with how the individuals (the recipients) are
treated during the action. Muchinsky (2000) states that treating people in an “open and honestfashion” exemplifies a socially just methodology (p. 279).
Classification of Justice
With these two methods of describing justice (types and means), we can create four
categories or classes of justice: Systematic, Configural, Informational, and Interpersonal.
Table 1 shows a typology of the classification of these four “flavors” of justice.
T a b l e 1 Typology of Justice Classification
Means
Justification Type Structural Social
Procedural Systematic Informational
Distributive Configural Interpersonal
Systematic Justice
Systematic (systemic) justice is comprised of procedural justice using structural means.
Muchinsky (2000) explains this concept:
Structural means include making sure the decisions made (1) are consistent over people and time, (2) are based on accurate information, (3) represent the concerns of all parties, and (4) are compatible with prevailing moral and ethical standards (p. 279).
Configural Justice
Configural Justice is comprised of distributive justice using structural means. Outcomes
vary with different circumstances; this is where the three rules of distribution come into play. Does the employee with the highest production get the promotion and pay increase? Or do these rewards go to the single mother of two? What about the Asian employee, who would be the only non-Caucasian to hold a position of authority?
Informational Justice
Informational justice is the social method of achieving procedural justice. As the name
suggests, there is a free flow of information. This class of justice requires that the people involved (frequently the recipients of the outcome) be given the rationale behind the decision.
Interpersonal Justice
Interpersonal justice is the social method of achieving distributive justice. Overt concern for the outcomes of individuals typifies this class of justice.
__________________
Bilgen Hündür
İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi
İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi Programı
Yüksek Lisans Öğrencisi
|
Düzenli Mod
