Search results

This study compares the role of procedural justice in motivating organizational retaliatory behaviors between two employee samples, one American and the other Taiwanese. The cross‐national generality of procedural justice effects on retaliation are examined with regard to three issues. First, this study considers the comparability of the link between procedural justice and retaliation between the two national samples. Second, it examines whether procedural justice effects on retaliation are mediated by organizational identity in both samples, as has been found in previous research based on U.S. employees (Tyler & Blader, 2000). Third, it investigates whether procedural justice is defined similarly in the two samples. Results indicate moderate cultural variation in the influence of procedural justice on retaliation and in the mediating role of organizational identity. Specifically, although procedural justice was slightly less predictive of retaliation among the Taiwanese sample, the association between justice and retaliation for these respondents was fully (as opposed to partially) mediated by organizational identity. Significant national differences also emerged in the meaning of procedural justice. Taiwanese employees demonstrated a balanced influence of relational and instrumental concerns when making overall procedural fairness perceptions, while U.S. employees defined procedural fairness primarily in terms of relational concerns.

Purpose – This chapter reviews the authors’ research on group procedural justice and group-serving behavior. It makes the case that fairness and unfairness can both motivate group-serving behavior; the former makes group members feel good about their identity, leading them to “reward” the group, and the latter indicates a group shortcoming, leading members to “repair” the group.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter describes several studies published elsewhere. Correlational research with employees and students examines the relationship between group procedural fairness and group members’ positive affect, which should translate into group-serving behavior. Experimental research with students investigates whether group procedural unfairness can result in group-serving behavior (measured via self-report and observed helping). Complementary findings from other authors are briefly described and discussed in support of a developed theoretical model of group procedural justice and group-serving behavior.

Findings – Group procedural fairness was more strongly related to arousing positive affect for strongly identified group members. Separately, strongly identified group members engaged in more group-serving behavior when their group had unfair rather than fair procedures.

Research limitations/implications – Possible boundary conditions for the motivating effects of unfairness are discussed (e.g., group permeability, time frame, and anonymity of unfairness). Suggestions for future research are proposed (e.g., examine the effect of justice information on group-serving behavior when group members can also modify group procedures).

Practical implications – Better understanding the effects of group procedural unfairness should influence how organizations and societies promote group-serving behavior.

Originality/value – Research on the motivating effects of both group procedural fairness and unfairness are synthesized into one theoretical model.

Respect is an important indicator of intragroup status, and it can influence within-group behavior. Being respected by other group members indicates a positive standing within the group that is relevant to two important identity concerns: belongingness and social reputation. Belongingness refers to the extent to which a person feels included in the group, and social reputation refers to how other in-group members evaluate a person. We review a series of studies that show that respect indeed communicates information relevant to these identity concerns, and as such influences a person's sense of affiliation, self-esteem, and cooperation (all variables considered to be important for the viability of groups). In addition, we also discuss whether the source of respect (i.e., peers vs. authority), culture, and group size matter in influencing these group-related variables. Finally, some implications for research on groups are discussed.

It has been recognised that there is importance of trust within organisations. There is also a recognised theme that trust must move beyond rational or calculative trust to various forms of social trust. This paper makes clear the potential importance of social trust, and its value to emerging organisations. In the new era of faster, looser, more rapidly changing connections between people and groups, trust based on inferences about the motives, character and intentions of others is becoming more central to the ability of organisations to manage their dynamics efficiently and effectively and ensure their growth and survival.

In addition to serving a hegemonic function, system-justifying ideologies serve the palliative function of enabling people to feel better about inequality. We summarize three studies supporting this proposition. In the first study, an arbitrary hierarchy was created using the “Star Power” simulation. Results reveal that system justification is associated with increased positive affect, satisfaction, and decreased negative affect, guilt, and frustration. Two additional studies demonstrate that the dampening effect of system justification on support for the redistribution of resources is mediated by reduced moral outrage but not guilt or negative affect. Implications for social change and social justice are discussed.

A comparison of two motivations for engaging in work organizations suggests that people are motivated by both the resources they receive from their organizations and by the role that the organization plays in creating and sustaining a favorable view of ones status. Status issues are especially central as motivators of voluntary behavior within the organization.

Suggests that theories of procedural fairness can offer insights into the effectiveness of complaint‐handling strategies. Discusses complaint‐handling strategies, equity theory, distributive fairness, procedural fairness, interactional fairness and how marketers can best satisfy complainers. Concludes that firms need to have complaints procedures which consumers feel treat them fairly; which involves appearing genuinely responsive, rather than offer apologies by rote.

Purpose – This capstone chapter introduces Amartya Sen's important and innovative theory of justice to researchers on fairness in groups and organizations. Here, I discuss how Sen's theory can provide grounding for both philosophical and social scientific work on justice and how social science research can inform and be informed by Sen's theory.

Design/methodology/approach – In this chapter, I discuss Sen's new book, A Theory of Justice, and explain the main aspects of Sen's theory of justice. I then draw conceptual linkages between Sen's theory and those introduced in each of the other chapters included in this volume.

Findings – I show that Sen's view of justice goes beyond social contract theories that attempt to identify ideal institutional arrangements to seek practical solutions that increase justice as experienced by actual people in the world. Rather than parallel endeavors, Sen's approach reveals philosophy and social science to be deeply connected to each other and to justice by providing a unifying theme by which various social scientific traditions are shown to study aspects of the same underlying phenomena. Further, I demonstrate how philosophy and social science together can increase justice in the world.

Originality/value – Sen's theory of justice, though influential in economic and policy circles, is largely unfamiliar to social psychologists and organizational scholars. I introduce these fields to Sen's theory of justice and show how it is useful for social psychological approaches to the study of fairness in groups and organizations.

States how marketers have been traditionally advised to allow unhappy customers to voice their opinions freely, offering apologies. Suggests that theories of procedural fairness such as equity theory can provide understanding of the effectiveness of such complaint‐handling strategies. Argues that an apology cannot compensate for lack of a tangible outcome such as a refund. Concludes with a consideration of how marketers may be able to satisfy their complainers more effectively.