Organizational Justice, Ethics, and Corporate Social Responsibility

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 2 • ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE, ETHICS, AND CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 47 FIGURE 2.3 The Relationship Between Outcome Favorability and Procedural Justice Many different studies have reported that the relationship between outcome favorability and procedural justice takes the form summarized here. Specifically, people’s reactions to favorable outcomes are affected little by the fairness of the procedure, whereas people’s reactions to unfavorable outcomes are enhanced by the use of fair procedures. General Reaction Positive People’s reactions to unfavorable outcomes are enhanced by using fair procedures People’s reactions to favorable outcomes are consistently positive regardless of the fairness of the procedure Source: Based on suggestions by Brockner & Weisenfeld, 2005; see Note 16. Fair procedure Unfair procedure Negative Unfavorable Outcomes Favorable same would apply to other outcomes as well, such as pay or recognition on the job.) Now, imagine that your grade either was the result of a simple arithmetic error (i.e., procedural justice was low) or that it was computed in an accurate, unbiased fashion (i.e., procedural justice was high). Generally speaking, you will respond more positively to the fair procedure than the unfair procedure, thinking more favorably of the professor and the school as a whole. (Of course, the analogous effect also would apply in organizations.) So far, this is nothing new. Consider, however, what happens when you combine these effects, looking at the overall relationship between the favorability of outcomes together with the fairness of procedures to arrive at those outcomes. This relationship, which takes the interactive form shown in Figure 2.3, has been very well established among scientists studying organizational justice. 16 Let’s illustrate this relationship using the course grade example. The right side of the diagram describes what happens when the outcome is favorable—in other words, when you get a high grade. In this instance, you would be inclined to have a positive reaction because you are so very pleased with your high grade. Although you don’t like the fact that it was not computed fairly, you are willing to overlook this given that you got what you wanted. Now, however, look at the left side of the diagram, the part representing unfavorable outcomes. In this case, where you received a low grade, your feelings about the professor and even the school as a whole are likely to be influenced greatly by the fairness of the procedure. Specifically, you will be highly dissatisfied with the low grade when it results from an unfair procedure. After all, the grade doesn’t reflect your true performance. However, your reactions are inclined to be far more positive when the low grade was based on a fair procedure. Again, although you don’t particularly like the grade, believing that it was computed in an accurate and unbiased fashion (i.e., that it is procedurally fair) will get you to respond in a positive fashion. Put differently, although people’s reactions to unfavorable
48 PART 1 • INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR outcomes are enhanced by fair procedures, their reactions to unfavorable outcomes are affected very little by the fairness of the procedure used. This particular relationship is important to understand because it has very practical implications. In organizations, after all, it is not always possible to give people the favorable outcomes they desire. However, this does not necessarily mean that they will respond negatively. The possibility of negative reactions may be minimized by following fair procedures (and, of course, by ensuring that everyone involved is well aware of the fairness of the procedures followed). To borrow a phrase from Mick Jagger, “you can’t always get what you want,” but you are more likely to accept what you get when it was determined in a procedurally just manner. The Additive Relationship Between Interpersonal Justice and Informational Justice. In contrast to the interactive relationship between distributive justice and procedural justice, the relationship between interpersonal justice and informational justice is far simpler. Research has shown that perceptions of justice are enhanced when people explain outcomes using a lot of detail (i.e., when informational justice is high) and also when people explain outcomes in a manner that demonstrates a considerable amount of dignity and respect (i.e., when interpersonal justice is high). What happens when these effects are combined—that is, when information is presented in a manner that is both socially sensitive and highly informative? Research provides a clear answer: The effects are additive. In other words, each of these factors contributes somewhat to people’s perceptions of fairness, but together their effects are magnified. 17 The more interpersonal justice and more informational justice is shown, the more people believe things are fair. This additive relationship between interpersonal justice and informational justice can be very valuable for supervisors to take into account when managing employees. The implications are straightforward: Sharing lots of information about outcomes makes workers accept those outcomes better, as does presenting that information in a sensitive and caring fashion. However, being both highly informative and highly sensitive and caring in one’s presentation style at the same time enhances feelings of justice and promotes positive behavior most effectively of all. A good illustration of this is provided in a study conducted recently by one of the authors. 18 In this investigation, nurses at two hospitals suffered a distributive injustice resulting from a new compensation system that reduced their pay by about 10 percent. At two other hospitals, the nurses were paid similarly to begin with, but did not have their pay cut. In one hospital in each group the supervisors of the nurses studied were given extensive managerial training that emphasized interpersonal and informational justice. Assuming that being treated in informationally and interpersonally fair ways would make nurses feel better about their pay cuts, it was reasoned that the nurses whose supervisors were trained in ways of promoting both these forms of justice (and who presumably followed what they learned in their treatment of the nurses they supervised) would suffer less stressful reactions to the pay cut than those whose supervisors were less attuned to promoting these important forms of justice. Specifically, in this study, stress was measured in terms of the nurses’ insomnia, which was assessed using their responses to a questionnaire measuring problems getting to sleep and maintaining sleep throughout the night. Although we will discuss stress in considerable detail in Chapter 5, from your personal experiences, you probably are not surprised to learn that losing sleep is a common, and widespread, response to stress. These measures were collected at various points over 39 consecutive weeks. The results, summarized in Figure 2.4, tell an interesting story. Nurses whose pay was unchanged over the study period experienced no significant changes in insomnia, whether or not their supervisors were trained. However, insomnia jumped from relatively low levels to relatively high levels immediately after the distributively unfair pay was introduced. This suggests that nurses found the distributive injustice to be stressful. Importantly, these effects were reduced dramatically among the nurses whose supervisors were trained in ways to promote informational and interactional justice. The combined effects of being treated with high degrees of informational and interpersonal justice effectively combated the negative impact of distributive injustice.
Page 1 and 2: Chapter 2 Organizational Justice, E
Page 3 and 4: 42 PART 1 • INTRODUCTION TO ORGAN
Page 7: 46 PART 1 • INTRODUCTION TO ORGAN
Page 47: 86 PART 1 • INTRODUCTION TO ORGAN
Page 50 and 51: 28 PART I • INTRODUCTION TO ORGAN
Page 52 and 53: 146 PART 2 • BASIC HUMAN PROCESSE
Page 54 and 55: 148 PART 2 • BASIC HUMAN PROCESSE
Page 56 and 57: CHAPTER 13 • LEADERSHIP IN ORGANI
Page 58 and 59:
CHAPTER 13 • LEADERSHIP IN ORGANI
Page 60 and 61:
CHAPTER 5 • COPING WITH ORGANIZAT
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
show all

Organizational Justice, Ethics, and Corporate Social Responsibility

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?