Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior - Soltanieh ...

256 JERALD GREENBERG
( 1961 ) conceptualization of distributive justice, equity theory focused on people ’s perceptions
of the fairness of the relative distribution of outcomes (i.e. rewards) and inputs (i.e.
contributions) between themselves and others. The theory claims that people who perceive
these conditions as being unequal experience the negative state of inequity distress,
which they are motivated to redress by adjusting their own or the other ’s outcome or
inputs either behaviorally or cognitively.
Equity theory has received good support from many of the early studies designed to
test its basic tenets (for a review, see Greenberg, 1982 ). It also has been used to account for
a wide variety of organizational phenomena. For example, equity theory has provided a
useful basis for explaining why cuts in pay encourage factory workers to steal from their
employers (Greenberg, 1990a ) and why the performance of professional baseball players
declines during seasons in which (as free agents) they are paid less than they were the previous
season (Sturman and Thibodeau, 2001 ). Although it is not studied as much as it was
during the 1970s, equity theory remains today ’s dominant conceptualization of distributive
justice used by scientists in the fi eld of OB (Mowday and Colwell, 2003 ).
Procedural justice
Some theorists have criticized equity theory on the grounds that its exclusive focus on distributions
is overly narrow. This precludes it from accounting for many of the feelings of
injustice people experience that cannot be captured in terms of relative outcomes and
inputs. In a seminal article, Leventhal ( 1980 ) expressed this sentiment explicitly by posing
the question, “ What should be done with equity theory? ” (p. 27). His answer called for
supplementing our understanding of distributive justice – the perceived fairness of how
outcomes are distributed – with a focus on procedural justice – the perceived fairness of the
manner in which outcomes are determined.
The seminal work on procedural justice was Thibaut and Walker ’s ( 1975 ) monograph
describing their program of research on fairness perceptions in legal disputes. Specifi cally,
these researchers compared legal systems differing with respect to the amount of control
disputants had over the procedures used to resolve disputes. Repeatedly, they found that
the procedures disputants believed to be fairest were ones that granted them a voice in
proceedings – that is, the capacity to influence outcomes (for an update, see Lind and
Kulik, 2009 ).
Leventhal ( 1980 ; Leventhal, Karuza, and Fry, 1980 ) reinforced the importance of voice
in fair procedures while also making two key claims: (1) that fair procedures are important
to people in contexts other than dispute resolution and (2) that when people consider fair
procedures in these contexts, they take into account factors in addition to voice. These
factors – Leventhal ’ s six “ rules of fair procedure ” – are as follows:
◆ Consistency. Procedures should be consistent across time and persons.
◆ Bias suppression. Procedures should not be affected by personal self - interest or blind
allegiance to existing preconceptions.
◆ Accuracy. Procedures should be based on completely accurate and valid information.
◆ Correctability. Procedures should include opportunities to modify and reverse
decisions (e.g. appeals and grievances).