Research on organizational justice has focused primarily on the receivers of just and unjust treatment. Little is known about why managers adhere to or violate rules of justice in the first place. The authors introduce a model for understanding justice rule adherence and violation. They identify both cognitive motives and affective motives that explain why managers adhere to and violate justice rules. They also draw distinctions among the justice rules by specifying which rules offer managers more or less discretion in their execution. They then describe how motives and discretion interact to influence justice-relevant actions. Finally, the authors incorporate managers' emotional reactions to consider how their actions may change over time. Implications of the model for theory, research, and practice are discussed.

A key problem facing aggression research is how to measure individual differences in aggression accurately and efficiently without sacrificing reliability or validity. Researchers are increasingly demanding brief measures of aggression for use in applied settings, field studies, pretest screening, longitudinal, and daily diary studies. The authors selected the three highest loading items from each of the Aggression Questionnaire's (Buss & Perry, 1992) four subscales--Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, anger, and hostility--and developed an efficient 12-item measure of aggression--the Brief Aggression Questionnaire (BAQ). Across five studies (N = 3,996), the BAQ showed theoretically consistent patterns of convergent and discriminant validity with other self-report measures, consistent four-factor structures using factor analyses, adequate recovery of information using item response theory methods, stable test-retest reliability, and convergent validity with behavioral measures of aggression. The authors discuss the reliability, validity, and efficiency of the BAQ, along with its many potential applications.

Summary Growing evidence suggests that employees' perceptions of their employer's corporate social responsibility (CSR) relate positively to employee work engagement. This is an important connection given the impact of work engagement on both employee health and organizational productivity, as well as the importance of CSR for society. In this paper, however, we argue that the CSR perceptions–work engagement relationship cannot be assumed to be universal and that both individual and contextual factors will place meaningful boundary conditions on this effect. Integrating motivation and cross‐cultural theories, we propose that the relationship between employees' CSR perceptions and their work engagement will be stronger among employees who perceive higher CSR‐specific relative autonomy (i.e., employees' contextualized motivation for complying with, advocating for, and/or participating in CSR activities) and that this amplification effect will be stronger among employees who are higher on individualism (studied at the individual‐level of analysis). These predictions were mostly supported among a sample of 673 working adults from five different regions (Canada, China [mainland], France, Hong Kong, and Singapore) and while controlling for first‐party justice perceptions, moral identity, employee demographics, and employer/nation characteristics. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 113 (2010) 127-140. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.08.001Received by publisher: 2009-01-29Harvest Date: 2016-01-04 12:22:47DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.08.001Page Range: 127-14

No abstract