Perceptions of Systemic Justice: The Effects of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice

Abstract

The literature on organizational justice has identified 3 key components of this process: distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, we reasoned that employees may use perceptions of these 3 components as a basis for drawing inferences about the fairness of the organization as a whole (i.e., their perceptions of systemic justice). A field study was conducted on a sample of 232 employees working in various organizations. Results show that employees' perceptions of procedural justice and interactional justice in their organizations positively predicted perceptions of systemic justice (i.e., that the organization was fair overall). Perceptions of distributive justice, however, did not predict perceptions of systemic justice. Practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Effects of procedural justice on employees job satisfaction and new identification after merger and new identification s mediating role in this relationship

“…Örgütsel adalet olumlu algısı, çalışanların tutum ve davranışlarını olumlu etkilemekte, adaletsizlik algısı halinde ise (örneğin "ücretim aşırı derecede düşük ve diğer çalışanların çoğundan daha az ücret alıyorum" gibi ifadeler) "hırsızlık" dahil olumsuz davranışlara neden olmaktadır 3 .…”

“…Süreç adaleti olumlu algısının çalışanın yeni kurumla özdeşleşmesini olumlu etkilediği tespit edilmiştir 55 .…”

Practice and Process in Wraparound Teamwork

“…Perceptions of equity are also increased when decision-making procedures are clear and consistent (Beugre & Baron, 2001) and when team members understand why a particular option was favored over others (Korsgaard et al, 1995). Clear procedures help build a sense of consistency and nonarbitrariness in decision-making, which in turn enhances perceptions of fairness.…”

“…Merely providing opportunities to speak is not sufficient, however, and team cohesiveness is adversely impacted when members feel that their participation is only cosmetic or consultative (S. G. Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Team members must feel that their input is being given serious consideration by the team, and they tend to feel this way when their ideas are listened to attentively and when their viewpoints are respectfully acknowledged (Beugre & Baron, 2001;Korsgaard et al, 1995). In the wraparound context, teams can express attentiveness and provide acknowledgment in a variety of ways.…”

“…G. Cohen & Bailey, 1997). The tone of interpersonal interaction that teams set in the beginning of their work is likely to endure (Beugre & Baron, 2001), so it is particularly useful for expectations about communicative behavior to be clarified early on. To this end, some wraparound teams devise "ground rules" in the early phases of their work and discuss how the rules will be enforced.…”