Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior - Soltanieh ...

262 JERALD GREENBERG
SPECIAL CASES AND EXCEPTIONS
Having described the central principle of procedural and interactional justice and its
major subprinciples, I now identify several key qualifying conditions under which these
are likely to occur.
Outcome valence
Research has established that procedural justice ’s effects on the acceptance of organizational
outcomes are qualified by the valence of the outcomes involved (Brockner and
Weisenfeld, 1996 ). Specifically, fair procedures matter more to people when outcomes are
negative than when they are positive – an effect known as the outcome process interaction.
Generally, employees receiving positive outcomes tend to be so pleased with what
they got that they are unconcerned with how they got it. However, concerns about procedures
become salient when outcomes are negative (for a detailed analysis of this effect,
see Brockner, 2009 ). After all, people who don’t receive what they want are likely to ask
“ why? ” and the answers they seek are likely to be framed in terms of the procedures used
to determine those outcomes. As I explained elsewhere (Greenberg, 1986b ), people may
feel that it is inappropriate to express their dissatisfaction with undesirable outcomes for
fear of appearing to be “ sore losers,” but that it almost always is appropriate to ask questions
about “ how ” outcomes were determined. Indeed, the basis for appealing grades in
most universities and the verdicts of court cases is based not on dissatisfaction with the
outcomes (although this may be the underlying motive for the appeal), but on the propriety
of the procedures used to determine them. And, because procedures hold the key to
understanding outcomes, their salience is heightened when outcomes are negative.
Although procedural justice might matter more when outcomes are negative than
when positive, this applies to people ’s acceptance of organizational outcomes, but not to
organizations themselves. Indeed, high levels of procedural justice can have benefi cial
effects on commitment to the organization in question even when outcomes are positive.
For example, Greenberg ( 1994 ) found that a smoking ban that was explained fairly had
stronger effects on smokers (for whom the impact was negative) than on non - smokers (for
whom the impact was positive). However, both smokers and non - smokers expressed high
levels of commitment to the organization when it used fair procedures. Apparently, organizations
that use fair procedures send strong messages about their underlying commitment
to fairness, which enhances employees ’ commitment to the organization regardless of the
outcomes they receive from it.
The limits of voice
If the granting of voice enhances acceptance of outcomes, then it may be assumed that
more voice promotes greater acceptance (see Chapter 24 for a discussion of participation
in decision making). However, research suggests that such an assumption is fallacious.
Specifically, two studies have shown that the benefits of the magnitude of voice are
non - linear. For example, Hunton, Wall, and Price ( 1998 ) conducted an experiment
in which they manipulated the number of supervisory decisions (0, 5, 10, 15, or 20) over which