THERE is already in existence a vast amount of detailed data appertaining to cooling systems, but there appears to be a serious lack of general works on the whole subject. This…
Abstract
THERE is already in existence a vast amount of detailed data appertaining to cooling systems, but there appears to be a serious lack of general works on the whole subject. This paper is an attempt to formulate a general picture of the whole operation of engine cooling, and to provide a complete skeleton on which the various detail works can be hung together.
THE combined effect of Sections III and IV is a gain of up to 3 per cent t.h.p. at moderate speeds, over the best systems without a blower, in spite of the detrimental effect of…
Abstract
THE combined effect of Sections III and IV is a gain of up to 3 per cent t.h.p. at moderate speeds, over the best systems without a blower, in spite of the detrimental effect of heating of the air due to compression. The blower absorbs about 10 per cent b.h.p. which is additionally recovered as useful thrust. Pressure air cooling does not permit the economical use of materially smaller matrices.
In the current contribution I suggest that reactions to decision-making procedures often are influenced by egocentric concerns. Such egocentrism can be inferred from various…
Abstract
In the current contribution I suggest that reactions to decision-making procedures often are influenced by egocentric concerns. Such egocentrism can be inferred from various theories that assume people's procedural justice judgments to be based on the implications of decision-making procedures for themselves instead of for others. The present review considers evidence for two propositions: (1) People respond more negatively to procedural injustice when it happens to themselves than when it happens to others, and (2) an egocentric self-focus amplifies people's fairness-based responses to decision-making procedures. It is concluded that egocentric motives play a central role in procedural justice effects.
Karen A Hegtvedt and Jody Clay-Warner
Processes of legitimacy and justice pervade work organizations. Here we focus on how legitimacy (collective sources of support for an authority) and procedural justice (use of…
Abstract
Processes of legitimacy and justice pervade work organizations. Here we focus on how legitimacy (collective sources of support for an authority) and procedural justice (use of fair procedures) affect how individuals interpret and respond to situations involving unfair outcomes such as underpayment. We draw upon the legitimacy perspective of Walker and Zelditch and the procedural justice approach of Tyler to develop two new models, one in which the two factors constitute objective and independent contextual elements and one in which perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice are reciprocal. Both models have implications for understanding fairness and compliance in organizations.
Donald E. Conlon and William H. Ross
In a simulated organizational conflict, concession behavior by a negotiator's opponent was manipulated to examine how subsequent third party intervention would influence…
Abstract
In a simulated organizational conflict, concession behavior by a negotiator's opponent was manipulated to examine how subsequent third party intervention would influence negotiator perceptions of process control, decision control, distributive justice, and the third party. Negotiators whose opponents made large concessions reciprocated by also making large concessions, suggesting a high level of movement toward agreement by the disputants; subjects whose opponents made few concessions reciprocated in kind, resulting in little movement toward agreement. Third parties, however, imposed outcomes on all negotiators prior to negotiated agreements. Perceptions of decision control, distributive justice, and the necessity of third party intervention were influenced by whether disputants were close to reaching an agreement on their own or not. Outcome imposed by the third party influenced almost all measures. The study suggests that behavior by the disputants (in the form of movement toward agreement), and not just behavior by the third party, can influence ratings of both procedures and outcomes.
Ya‐Ru Chen and Allan H. Church
This review article focuses on the factors that affect the selection and implementation of three principles of distributive justice (i.e., equity, equality, and need) to reward…
Abstract
This review article focuses on the factors that affect the selection and implementation of three principles of distributive justice (i.e., equity, equality, and need) to reward systems in group and organizational settings. After presenting an overview of the assumptions, goals, and possible consequences associated with each of the three perspectives, the article then describes the moderating factors influencing distribution rule preferences across four levels of analysis: (1) the interorganizational, (2) the intraorganizational, (3) the work group, and (4) the individual. Some of the variables discussed include cross‐cultural differences, reward system implementation, task interdependency, work group climate, and individual characteristics. This material is then summarized through the use of a new conceptual model for describing allocation rule preferences. The article concludes with suggestions for future research.
Bruce Barry and Debra L. Shapiro
Justice research has established that voice enhances procedural justice—a phenomenon known as the ‘voice effect’—through both instrumental and non‐instrumental mechanisms…
Abstract
Justice research has established that voice enhances procedural justice—a phenomenon known as the ‘voice effect’—through both instrumental and non‐instrumental mechanisms. However, limited research attention has been devoted to the underlying motivational bases for the operation of one or the other explanatory mechanism in a given situation. We report the findings of two laboratory studies examining situational, motivational, and attributional underpinnings for the voice effect. We found that motivation to voice varied with characteristics of the authority to whom a grievance is directed. In both studies, an interaction revealed that non‐instrumental motivation for voice is more important when instrumental motivation is lacking or unavailable. In Study 2, we introduce the role of social attributions into research on the voice effect, finding that grievants' judgments about their objectives in using voice vary with the attributions they make about the motives behind the authority's actions. We discuss implications of our findings for both theory and practice.
Jengchung V. Chen and Yangil Park
Many office workers use computers and the Internet not only to get their daily jobs done but also to deal with their personal businesses. Therefore employers nowadays monitor…
Abstract
Many office workers use computers and the Internet not only to get their daily jobs done but also to deal with their personal businesses. Therefore employers nowadays monitor their employees electronically to prevent the misuse of the company resources. The use of electronic monitoring in organizations causes issues of trust and privacy. This study is dedicated to developing a conceptual model on the two issues under electronic monitoring. Control, considered as the essence of the definition of privacy as well as the foundation of the control model in the theory of procedural justice, plays an important role to people’s privacy concerns and trust. People’s perceived‐self, as essential in the group‐value model in the theory of procedural justice and in the cultural studies, also plays an important role to people’s privacy concerns and trust. This study presents research hypotheses on trust and privacy under electronic surveillance based on the two models of the theory of procedural justice, social identity theory, and cultural studies.
Details
Keywords
Jerald Greenberg, Marie-Élène Roberge, Violet T Ho and Denise M Rousseau
In response to demands and opportunities of the labor market, contemporary employers and employees voluntarily are entering into highly customized agreements regarding nonstandard…
Abstract
In response to demands and opportunities of the labor market, contemporary employers and employees voluntarily are entering into highly customized agreements regarding nonstandard employment terms. We refer to such idiosyncratic deals as “i-deals,” acknowledging that these arrangements are intended to benefit all parties. Examples of i-deals include an employee with highly coveted skills who is compensated more generously than other employees doing comparable work, and an employee who is granted atypically flexible working hours to accommodate certain personal life demands. The nonstandard nature of i-deals is likely to prompt questions about the fairness of the arrangement among three principal stakeholders – employees who receive the i-deal, managers with whom the i-deal is negotiated, and the co-workers of these employees and managers. We analyze issues of fairness that arise in the relationships among all three pairings of these stakeholders through the lenses of four established forms of organizational justice – distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice. Our discussion sheds light on previously unexplored nuances of i-deals and identifies several neglected theoretical issues of organizational justice. In addition to highlighting these conceptual advances, we also discuss methods by which the fairness of i-deals can be promoted.