One Justice or Two? A Model of Reconciliation of Normative Justice Theories and Empirical Research on Organizational Justice

Cugueró-Escofet, Natàlia; Fortin, Marion

doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1881-1

Cited by 47 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Historically, organizational justice researchers have focused on individual perceptions of fairness, why these judgments are important, and the effects of perceiving (in)justice (Cugueró‐Escofet & Fortin, in press). This approach has proven valuable, as justice perceptions have been found to predict such phenomena as work attitudes, job performance, and counterproductive work behaviors (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Justice” and “fairness” are not the same thing

Goldman

Cropanzano

2014

J. Organiz. Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Justice” and “fairness” are not the same thing

Goldman

Cropanzano

2014

J. Organiz. Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to a normative and prescriptive approach, we may develop and use philosophical theories to prescribe what justice must be (Cropanzano and Stein, 2009;Cugueró-Escofet and Fortin, 2014). This school of thought has contributed to overcome the study of organizational justice as an instrumentally motivated behavior towards a broader consideration of the philosophical basis of organizational justice (Cropanzano et al 2001;Folger, 2001).…”

Section: From Deontic Justice To Restorative Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Justice as responsibility for the others: a levinasian critique on organizational justice

Faldetta

2017

PIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to investigate how justice can be effective in restoring situations of injustice, particularly when they are caused by damaged or broken relationships in organizations, as inspired by principles of compassion, empathy, or mercy. In particular, we look for a convincing philosophical foundation for justice, proposing Levinas' ethics of responsibility as a way to explain it.The research question of this study originates from recognizing the importance of the normative dimensions of restoring justice. We argue that a notion of justice inspired by responsibility for the others can promote an organizational climate where people tend to forgive and reconcile each other instead of seeking personal vengeance, which often escalates out of control, creating unproductive conflicts. Justice under a Levinasian approach can bring also better relationships among organizational members, and a general better perception of workplace justice, so positively influencing also the likelihood of resolving workplace conflict.

show abstract

“…Organizational justice and ethics have both gone through recent struggles in attempting to delineate the intersection to these normative fields (cf. Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe 2008;Cugueró-Escofet and Fortin 2014).…”

Section: Social Scientific Versus Normative Approaches To Behavioral mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence regarding the measurement of perceived adherence to justice rules (so-called indirect measures of justice) versus the measurement of fairness perceptions (so-called direct measures of justice) also suggests that both have different psychometric properties . In order to build fairer workplaces, it is important to consider not only subjective or perceived fairness but also the underlying justice standards (Cugueró-Escofet and Fortin 2014;Fortin and Fellenz 2008). The recent efforts in the organizational justice literature to disentangle these issues in terms of both measurement and definition promise to clarify the field's intersections with both normative or prescriptive justice and ethics or morality.…”

Section: Normative Considerations Within Organizational Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the Particular and Universal: Dependence, Independence, and Interdependence of Context, Justice, and Ethics

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reflects on context effects in the study of behavioral ethics and organizational justice. After a general overview, we review three key challenges confronting research in these two domains. First, we consider social scientific versus normative approaches to inquiry. The former aims for a scientific description, while the latter aims to provide prescriptive advice for moral conduct. We argue that the social scientific view can be enriched by considering normative paradigms. The next challenge we consider, involves the duality of morally upright versus morally inappropriate behavior. We observe that there is a long tradition of categorizing behavior dichotomously (e.g., good vs. bad) rather than continuously. We conclude by observing that more research is needed to compare the dichotomous versus continuous perspectives. Third, we examine the role of ''cold'' cognitions and ''hot'' affect in making judgments of ethicality. Historically speaking, research has empathized cognition, though recent work has begun to add greater balance to affective reactions. We argue that both cognition and affect are important, but more research is needed to determine how they work together. After considering these three challenges, we then turn to our special issue, providing short reviews of each contribution and how they help in better addressing the three challenges we have identified.

show abstract

One Justice or Two? A Model of Reconciliation of Normative Justice Theories and Empirical Research on Organizational Justice

Cited by 47 publications

References 51 publications

“Justice” and “fairness” are not the same thing

“Justice” and “fairness” are not the same thing

Justice as responsibility for the others: a levinasian critique on organizational justice

Beyond the Particular and Universal: Dependence, Independence, and Interdependence of Context, Justice, and Ethics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About