Does Fairness Matter More to Some than to Others? The Moderating Role of Workplace Status on The Relationship Between Procedural Fairness Perceptions and Job Satisfaction

Abstract

Three field studies explored the relations among status, procedural fairness, and job satisfaction in the workplace. Study 1 revealed that status differences moderated the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction such that there was a stronger relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction for individuals with higher perceived status than for those with lower perceived status. Study 2 examined a possible underlying psychological mechanism for the moderating effect of perceived status-the importance of procedural fairness deservingness-and found that higher levels of perceived status were associated with a greater sense of deservingness for procedural fairness. Extending the results of the first two studies, Study 3 found that procedural fairness deservingness mediated the moderating effect of status on the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction. This research contributes to theories of fairness by further illuminating the role of status in affecting reactions to procedural fairness. This research also contributes to our understanding of status in organizations and shows that perceived status can lead to an increased sense of deservingness.

The multi-value basis of procedural justice

“…In a follow-up study, Sunshine and Heuer (2002) showed that when people interact with other members of their ingroup, the effect of respect on their fairness judgments is mediated by their perception that they deserve respect because of their within-group status (e.g., higher status as greater deservingness). A similar finding was recently reported by Diekmann et al (2007).…”

“…The first pertains to the role of deservingness assessments on procedural justice. Numerous theorists have argued that notions of deservingness are central to both distributive (Crosby, 1982;Lerner, 1965Lerner, , 1977Major, 1994;Major, McFarlin, & Gagnon, 1984) and procedural justice (Diekmann, Sondak, & Barsness, 2007;Heuer et al, 1999;Sunshine & Heuer, 2002). For example, Heuer et al (1999) argued that judgments of procedural justice are influenced by assessments of whether treatment received in a social encounter is in accord with the treatment deserved, and their research showed that people with high self-esteem feel more deserving of respectful treatment than people with low self-esteem.…”

The Self in Procedural Fairness

“…Additional research by Van Prooijen, Van den Bos, and Wilke (2002) and by Diekmann, Sondak, and Barsness (2007) has suggested a more nuanced relation between procedural fairness and status. Van Prooijen et al hypothesized that, when status is accessible in members' minds, procedural fairness will have a stronger psychological impact.…”

“…Additional research by Van Prooijen, Van den Bos, and Wilke (2002) and by Diekmann, Sondak, and Barsness (2007) has suggested a more nuanced relation between procedural fairness and status. Van Prooijen et al.…”

Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction in Coaching

“…Those perceptions of fairness held by organizational members towards those three dimensions and the integration of the dimensions formed the foundation for the organizational justice construct (Greenberg 1987(Greenberg , 1990Greenberg and Cropanzano 2001;Greenberg et al 1985). Since organizational justice and its dimensions have repeatedly been directly linked to performance, commitment, citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction (Begley et al 2006;Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001;Colquitt et al 2001;Colquitt et al 2002;Diekmann et al 2007;Fields et al 2000;Folger and Konovsky 1989;Jordan et al 2007a;Lam et al 2002;Sweeney and McFarlin 1997) further study within high school athletic departments was warranted.…”