Resolving the justice dilemma by improving the outcomes: The case of employee drug screening

Abstract

In this paper we seek to accomplish two objectives. First, we review and describe a phenomenon we call the justice dilemma. We argue that workers oRen perceive valid assessment practices to be unfair. By using these techniques, employers risk incurring hidden costs that are associated with perceived injustice. Thus, it is sometimes impractical to utilize an assessment technique even though the procedure has good validity evidence. Our second purpose is to propose and test one way that organizations can resolve the justice dilemma. We do this in the context of workplace drug screening We argue that employees are often more tolerant of controversial assessment techniques to the extent that these procedures do not result in particularly negative outcomes. In a field study examining employee reactions to a drug screening program, this proposition was generally supported.Organizations often need to make decisions about their employees. They need to decide whom to retain, terminate, or promote. To make such decisions organizations oRen rely on some type of psychological test. Although many types of psychological tests are usef~ indicators of current and future work behavior, some of our most valid predictors are perceived by workers to be unfair. As we shall see, use of such tests can have a variety of negative consequences. Employers, therefore, find themselves in a "justice dilemma." Because of their concerns over fairness they are forced to circumscribe their use of valid staffing tools.

Halo Effect in Subjective Performance Evaluation Bias

“…The evaluator will give score in accordance with the actual performance. This is consistent with empirical research done by Cropanzano and Konovsky (1995) which said that the evaluators will not consider fairness when the outcome is high but will consider the fairness factor when the outcome is low. Thus, the second hypothesis is: H2: Supervisor"s subjective performance evaluation will be higher (lower) when the controllability level of objective performance measurement is lower (higher).…”

Why inconsistent leadership is regarded as procedurally unfair: the importance of social self‐esteem concerns

“…Cropanzano & Konovsky, 1995), but also by how individuals differ in their level of SSE. A limited number of studies already provide evidence that differences between individuals on a certain domain may have a moderating influence.…”