Search results

In this chapter, the authors present a theoretical model useful for analyzing people’s perceptions of what they should do, should not do, and should be allowed to do at work. These perceptions create powerful motivational forces that shape workplace behavior. The authors describe various aspects of this model – a deonance perspective – as it relates to rights (permissible behavior) and responsibilities (behavioral prescriptions and proscriptions). The authors demonstrate how it offers new insights beyond those available from existing theoretical models, and the authors outline its implications for research and the practice of human resource management.

The just‐in‐time (JIT) production system is notable for its emphasis on employee involvement and participation. However, we suggest that the role of participation that is most typically described in the organizational behavior (OB) literature does not match the type of participation practiced in JIT. We introduce a theoretical framework that accounts for these different perspectives: whereas the OB approach treats participation as an intervention and hence as an independent variable, the JIT approach sees it as a side effect of the JIT production system and hence a dependent variable. Understanding of the differences is essential in JIT implementation in the workplace if we are to avoid miscommunication, stress, and disbelief in the system.

Proposes that organizational fairness is a psychological mechanism that can mediate employee resistance to change. Focuses on resentment‐based resistance as a subset of all possible resistance behaviors. Uses referent cognitions theory to explain why organizational change not only increases employees’ sensitivity to fairness, but also why change is frequently perceived as a loss. Recent theoretical and empirical research is presented that suggests if researchers and managers focus on the effects of any one of these three types of justice (i.e. distributive, procedural or interactional justice), they might fail to address resistance adequately. Examines how the three forms of justice interact to predict resistance to change, and provides some implications of this interaction effect for change managers.

The purpose of this paper is to present and partially test the triangle model of fairness (TMF) by examining employee reactions to customer fairness.

A total of 217 undergraduate hospitality students at a US university participated in the study. Participants seated in a classroom were asked to take part in the study. Customer interpersonal justice was manipulated (high justice versus low justice) in a completely randomized between‐subjects design. The manipulation consisted of written scenarios that depicted interactions between a customer and an employee. Participants read the scenarios. Then, they were instructed to imagine they were the employee in the scenario and were asked to answer questions that assessed their reactions to the interaction with the customer.

Consistent with the predictions, the results of the study revealed that when employees experience interpersonally fair treatment from customers, they are more likely to engage in helping behaviors toward their organization and future customers.

The paper examines employee responses to fairness from customers, in terms of helping (or harming) the organization and future customers. As rationale for the study, the authors drew on the TMF. The study makes a contribution to research on services and organizational justice by being the first to empirically examine the TMF. Overall, this paper demonstrates that organizations need to be cognizant of the effects of customers' treatment on service employees, as customers' treatment can have serious effects on employees' subsequent behaviors.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the causes, impact, and resolution of ideological conflicts in the workplace. By integrating research on organizational justice, the paper aims to argue that ideological discord is engendered though the interaction of distributive, procedural, and interactional (un)fairness.

Using a longitudinal field study, the ideas were tested with a sample of 77 claimants, undergoing mediation through the USA. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The results were generally supportive of all predictions, suggesting that, though injustice may cause troublesome ideological conflicts, fair dispute resolution interventions can provide a remedy.

The research documented in this paper is particularly important because it suggests that justice can be restored through the intervention of a neutral mediator.

This paper analyzes five characteristics associated with the overall decision‐making process that are necessary to achieve a high degree of perceived procedural justice within four strategic contexts of focal subsidiaries. Strategic contexts are based on the role of subsidiaries as defined by the flow of knowledge between these subsidiaries and the global network of MNCs. Propositions are developed that relate the five characteristics, the four strategic contexts, and high perceived procedural justice. The propositions represent a template for managers and researchers interested in the successful implementation of global strategic decisions and the improvement of the performance of individual subsidiaries as well as the global competitiveness of multinational corporations.

Based on the referent cognitions theory (RCT), individuals compare their outcomes to a given reference point. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of centrality bias in subjective performance evaluation on two employees’ work behaviors; willingness to exert work effort and retaliation intention.

A 2  ×  2 × 2 between-subject real-effort task experiment was conducted on 162 Accounting and Management students. Centrality bias and level of task difficulty were each manipulated into two groups. Meanwhile, the level of performance was divided based on the average score of the real-effort task.

The experimental data were examined using MANOVA and PROCESS macro regression. It reveals that centrality bias negatively affects willingness to exert work effort through perceived procedural fairness and positively affects retaliation intention. These findings align with the RCT in explaining the perceived procedural fairness psychological mechanism and the work behavior resulting from an unfair evaluation procedure.

This study is the first of its kind to investigate the effect of centrality bias in subjective performance evaluation on positive and negative employee behaviors concurrently, which refers to the real-effort experimental task. The study demonstrates the significant impact of centrality bias on unwillingness to exert effort and adverse behavior.

Fred R. Blass is an Assistant in Management at Florida State University. He received a Ph.D. in Management from Florida State University, and before joining the faculty at Florida State, served on the Department of Management faculty at the United States Air Force Academy. Blass has research interests in power and influence in organizations and organizational socialization. He has published his research in such journals as Human Resource Management and The Leadership Quarterly. Also, he has presented his research at both national and regional professional conferences.