Does Changing the Rules Really Matter? Assessing Procedural Justice Perceptions under Civil Service Reform

Assessing the Six-Factor Model of Organizational Justice in the Context of Workplace Mediation

“…Results are first estimated for a combined test of the model, controlling for participants’ role (i.e., grievant or respondent). Next, given previous findings showing that supervisor and subordinate perceptions of organizational justice differ (Bollen et al, 2012; Rubin & Chiques, 2015; Rubin & Weinberg, 2016) and following Nesbit et al’s (2012) analytic approach, separate tests of the six-factor model are estimated for grievants and respondents, respectively.…”

“…As such, it did not include the same number or wording of items used in the seminal work operationalizing the six-factor model (Nabatchi et al, 2007; Nesbit et al, 2012). Given that limitation, this study follows Rubin and Weinberg’s (2016) strategy of selecting survey items according to their congruence with established theory and measures previously used in the organizational justice and mediation literature. It is fortuitous that the DOC survey included 10 items that allow for a reasonable approximation of the six-factor model of organizational justice 10 and a meaningful mediation outcome measure.…”

“…In other words, procedural justice perceptions reflect judgments about the degree to which individuals view decision making as fair (Rubin, 2009) thus making mediation satisfaction “a function of process” (Nabatchi et al, 2007, p. 150). Public administration researchers have given considerable attention to procedural justice, consistently finding it to have a strong influence on employee perceptions and organizational outcomes (Rubin, 2009; Rubin & Chiques, 2015; Rubin & Kellough, 2012; Rubin & Weinberg, 2016). This is especially true for those higher in the organizational hierarchy who derive value messages from how they are treated (Potipiroon & Rubin, 2018; Rubin & Chiques, 2015).…”

Intergovernmental Alignment, Program Effectiveness, and U.S. Homelessness Policy

“…For example, Wang, Zheng, and Zhao (2012) used the DID method to study fiscal reform of county governments in China in order to determine whether reform leads to more responsible local governmental activities in education. Van Ryzin (2014) studied the difference between public and private sector employees after the 9/11 in the U.S. Additionally, Rubin and Weinberg (2016) studied the changes in federal employees' perceptions on procedural justice after civil service reforms in the Department of Defense. Accordingly, the DID method helps us to estimate the treatment effect when researchers can plausibly argue that two groups differ only by the program/policy intervention, which means that two groups would have a similar trend-line in the absence of the treatment (the common trend assumption).…”

Fairness at the Organizational Level: Examining the Effect of Organizational Justice Climate on Collective Turnover Rates and Organizational Performance

“…In the past decade, organizational justice has become a central topic in public administration (Cho & Sai, 2012; Hassan, 2013a; Rubin & Chiqués, 2015; Rubin & Weinberg, 2016). Much attention has been given to justice perceptions because of the important work-related outcomes that have been linked to fair treatment of employees by the organization and its decision-makers.…”