How do We Know When We are Treated Fairly? Justice Rules and Fairness Judgments

Cropanzano, Russell; Fortin, Marion; Kirk, Jessica

doi:10.1108/s0742-730120150000033010

Cited by 53 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 165 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As mentioned above, a key insight of deontic justice theory is that an unfortunate or harmful event is evaluated with respect to some 'normative criteria' (Cugueró-Escofet and Fortin 2014, p. 2) or 'justice rules' (Hollensbe et al 2008(Hollensbe et al , p. 1099 or 'moral intuitions' (Greene and Haidt 2002, p. 517). When a transgressor's behavior toward another violates these rules, the observer or witness believes that the victim has been treated unfairly (Cropanzano et al 2015;Rupp and Paddock 2010). As we shall see, justice rules are emotionally weighted and they can be distinguished from simple social conventions, which Deontic Justice and Organizational Neuroscience are instead situational and somewhat arbitrary (e.g., Smetana et al 1993).…”

Section: Overview Of the Present Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The latter evidence is particularly important for deontic justice theory for another reason relevant to the organizational life. Indeed, while justice rules can be seen as internalized standards for assessing the fairness of events, workers (and humans more generally) often fail to make use of them (Folger and Cropanzano 1998;Cropanzano et al 2015). It is important to understand why this is the case.…”

Section: Closing Thoughts On Justice Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have not yet provided an account of specific neural systems supporting our model. Rather, here we describe how individuals make justice judgments (Cropanzano et al 2015). Notice that people are often motivated to make sense out of a salient but harmful event.…”

Section: Overview Of the Present Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historically, justice rules have been organized into three families (Cropanzano et al 2015): Distributive justice, which pertains to the outcome allocation; procedural justice, which relates to the decision-making process; and interactional justice, which concerns the interpersonal treatment received from another person. Some researchers have found it useful to further divide interactional justice into two sub-dimensions (e.g., .…”

Section: Recognizing and Applying Justice Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Toward this end, we present and discuss a theoretical model that disentangles the psychological mechanisms involved in the formulation of these fairness judgments and review these processes through an analysis of relevant neural correlates. Overall, we argue that individuals evaluate fairness by applying normative criteria called justice rules (Cropanzano et al 2015;Scott et al 2008). As we shall see, these fairness judgments are moderated by both affective and cognitive processes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Deontic Justice and Organizational Neuroscience

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to deontic justice theory, individuals often feel principled moral obligations to uphold norms of justice. That is, standards of justice can be valued for their own sake, even apart from serving self-interested goals. While a growing body of evidence in business ethics supports the notion of deontic justice, skepticism remains. This hesitation results, at least in part, from the absence of a coherent framework for explaining how individuals produce and experience deontic justice. To address this need, we argue that a compelling, yet still missing, step is to gain further understanding into the underlying neural and psychological mechanisms of deontic justice. Here, we advance a theoretical model that disentangles three key processes of deontic justice: The use of justice rules to assess events, cognitive empathy, and affective empathy. Together with reviewing neural systems supporting these processes, broader implications of our model for business ethics scholarship are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of the Present Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Closing Thoughts On Justice Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overview Of the Present Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recognizing and Applying Justice Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Deontic Justice and Organizational Neuroscience

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Seeking and finding justice: Why and when managers' feedback seeking enhances justice enactment

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary There is growing recognition that justice enactment is a complex activity and that managers face significant contextual and situational roadblocks when attempting to enact justice. However, research has not fully examined how managers, in the course of their jobs, can (a) identify and respond to justice‐related issues and (b) assemble and synthesize relevant information required to act in a manner consistent with justice rules. To begin addressing these concerns, we posit feedback seeking as a key managerial behavior that can facilitate greater justice enactment because it promotes the flow of both solicited and unsolicited information from employees to managers. Such information flows enhance the saliency of fairness goals and allow managers to learn about employees' contextualized needs in ways that facilitate increased justice enactment. However, we argue that these effects are less likely to occur when feedback‐seeking managers have lower generalized self‐efficacy. An analysis of archival data (NManagers = 8,706, NEmployees = 40,830), a study with manager–employee dyads (N = 181), and a time‐separated study of managers (N = 196) provide preliminary evidence in line with these arguments. We discuss the implications of our theory and findings with respect to the justice and feedback‐seeking literature.

show abstract

To be or not to be consistent? The role of friendship and group‐targeted perspective in managers' allocation decisions

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Adopting a justice enactment perspective, we explore managers' consistent versus inconsistent application of existing rules in allocation decisions. We propose that when managers form friendship relationships with their employees, they are likely to experience greater tensions when fulfilling their managerial duties as resource allocators. On the one hand, managers may wish to deviate from the rules to benefit an employee who is also a friend. On the other hand, benefiting one employee (but not others) might lead to tensions in managers' friendships with other employees. We further argue that the extent to which managers adopt a group‐targeted perspective affects the resolution of this tension such that, from such a perspective, they are more likely to perceive consistent application of existing rules (vs. deviating from them) as fairer. We find support for our predictions across a field study and an experimental study. We discuss implications of our findings for literatures on justice enactment, allocation decisions, and workplace friendships.

show abstract

How do We Know When We are Treated Fairly? Justice Rules and Fairness Judgments

Cited by 53 publications

References 165 publications

Deontic Justice and Organizational Neuroscience

Deontic Justice and Organizational Neuroscience

Seeking and finding justice: Why and when managers' feedback seeking enhances justice enactment

To be or not to be consistent? The role of friendship and group‐targeted perspective in managers' allocation decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About