Search results

This study examines the structure and dimensionality of organizational justice in a workplace mediation setting. It has three purposes: to determine whether the procedural and interpersonal justice factors in the four‐factor model of organizational justice can be split, thereby providing support for a six‐factor model; to identify how the split factors relate to other factors in the model; and to uncover any differences in employee and supervisor perceptions of organizational justice in workplace mediation.

Confirmatory factor analysis is used to explore the fit of four different models of organizational justice. The paper examines cross factor correlations to assess the strength and relationships among factors and to look for differences between employees and supervisors.

It is found that a six‐factor model of organizational justice provides the best fit for the data and that factor relationships differ little for employees and supervisors.

This is a field test of REDRESS^®, the USPS employment mediation program which uses transformative mediation. The study has important theoretical and research implications for organizational justice and workplace mediation.

The study has practical implications for organizational conflict management and dispute system design.

Organizational justice has not been adequately explored within the context of workplace mediation. The study is unique in that it concurrently examines multiple factors of organizational justice, using a large, longitudinal dataset from an internationally recognized workplace mediation program.

This article explores collaborative capital budgeting in U.S. local governments. To date, the capital budgeting literature has focused on practices within individual governments. This leaves a gap in our understanding because a large portion of capital planning, acquisition, and maintenance occurs through collaboration between two or more local governments. Drawing on the capital budgeting and collaborative public management literature, and on illustrative cases of collaborative capital budgeting in the United States, an inductive approach is used to: (1) identify and categorize the different objectives that motivate local officials to pursue collaborative agreements, (2) examine common patterns in the types of assets involved in collaboration, and (3) discover common institutional arrangements in collaboration agreements. The research findings demonstrate significant heterogeneity in the objectives, patterns, and institutions of collaborative capital budgeting.

Using an institutional theory perspective (micro and macro), the authors examined employment lawsuits across case type and alternative dispute resolution methods (negotiated settlements versus trials and arbitrations).

The authors examined actual data from US federal court lawsuits (N = 98,020). The data included the type of lawsuit, the dispute resolution method used and the outcome of the lawsuit in terms of the dollar amounts awarded.

The results show that employers were more likely to win in high social context cases (civil rights) than in other cases (Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, ERISA). In arbitrations, plaintiffs won more frequently and were awarded higher amounts in arbitration than in court trials. In arbitration, plaintiffs received more in high social context cases than in other cases.

The results show that employers lose more often and in larger dollar amounts in arbitration than in litigation. However, if arbitration rulings more closely matched the likely outcomes of trials, subsequent litigation would be less likely to be overturned, and transaction costs would be reduced. If this were the case, the arbitration of employment lawsuits would more closely match the arbitration of contractual grievances under the typical labor relations system, where the arbitrator’s decision is usually final and binding. This could be a better outcome for all stakeholders in the dispute resolution process.

This is the first study of its kind to examine actual workplace conflicts that result in employment-related lawsuits from the perspective of social contextual factors.

Over the 30 years, public management and administration scholars have crossed disciplinary boundaries to build a body of scholarship on collaboration for public good, services, and values. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Public management and administration researchers need to integrate the scholarship on collaboration through systems thinking. How do we define collaboration? How do we distinguish among the categories of collaborative public management (CPM), collaborative governance (CG), and networks? How do systems and institutional context shape collaboration in these categories? Within these categories, what are our units of analysis: individual leadership, organizations, or groups in collaboration processes? How do we apply what we know to practice and design?

The work requires that the authors examine CPM, CG, and networks in their larger and nested institutional contexts to determine how they are related to and shape each other. The Institutional Analysis and Development framework may inform this work. CPM or networks may be nested in CG processes and structures in inter-governmental contexts.

Researchers need more clarity as to the context within which CPM, CG, and networks occur, and in units of analysis and the roles of individual people as managers and as agents of organizations, as distinguished from organizations as constructs.

Scholars need to apply research to practice related to designing systems and structures in which collaboration occurs.

As humankind faces increasingly complex and multifaceted policy problems that cross inter-governmental and international boundaries and require inter-sectoral work, managers and organizations must improve both the design of collaboration in governance and management and mastery of essential skills to participate in collaboration.

CPM, CG, and network research does not sufficiently incorporate or control for institutional context into research design.