Justice Climate and Peer Justice Climate

Abstract

We provide an empirical examination of peer justice climate, defined as team-level judgments of the fairness with which coworkers generally treat one another, and justice climate, defined as team-level judgments of the fairness with which the team is collectively treated by an authority figure. Based on previous theoretical work, we tested a hierarchical structural model determining that peer justice climate was best represented as three first-order factors, which combine into a single second-order dimension. We found a similar two-level structure for justice climate. We also found that the relationship between peer justice climate and team satisfaction was mediated by cooperative team process.

Unit-level fairness and quality within the health care industry: A justice–quality model

“…In these teams, peer justice promoted effective team processes, which, in turn, engendered citizenship behaviours and a better final grade. In a later study with a similar sample, Li et al (2013) were unable to replicate the findings on performance. However, these authors found that peer justice predicted team satisfaction through the mediating role of cooperative teamwork processes.…”

“…Justice climate is well consolidated in the literature, helping to predict worker attitudes (Spell & Arnold, 2007), job performance (Naumann & Bennett, 2000), and absenteeism (Colquitt et al, 2002). Li et al (2013) recently conducted an empirical examination of the factorial structure of justice climate. Consistent with the tendency towards an overall approach to justice (e.g., Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005, Li et al (2013) observed that justice climate was best represented through a hierarchical structure that combined the first-order facets of this construct (distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational) into a superordinate construct-justice climate as a second-order factor.…”

“…Li et al (2013) recently conducted an empirical examination of the factorial structure of justice climate. Consistent with the tendency towards an overall approach to justice (e.g., Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005, Li et al (2013) observed that justice climate was best represented through a hierarchical structure that combined the first-order facets of this construct (distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational) into a superordinate construct-justice climate as a second-order factor. Hence, the same approach will be employed in the present study.…”

“…In their original study, Cropanzano et al (2011) assessed two facets of peer justice, procedural and interactional peer justice, treating them as separate predictors. In a later study, Li et al (2013) assessed three facets-distributive, procedural, and interactional peer justice-arguing for a hierarchical structure, so that the three first-order facets of peer justice were subsequently combined into a second-order factor. As in their work on justice climate (reviewed earlier), the authors found that the hierarchical structure provided the best fitting model of peer justice.…”

“…Cropanzano, Li, and Benson (2011) referred to this as peer justice. Even though justice climate and peer justice are differentiated in the literature, it is important for research to examine whether these constructs behave differently when related to other criterion variables (Li, Cropanzano, & Bagger, 2013). With these considerations in mind, the present study tests the complementary impact of these two perspectives-justice climate and peer justice-by exploring how each of them relates to service quality.…”