The effect representatives have on their client's perceptions of justice and fair treatment in workplace dispute resolution processes

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to present a theoretical framework for assessing the effects representatives have on their client's perceptions of justice, outcome and satisfaction, as well as the treatment received by clients from other stakeholders, in workplace dispute resolution processes. Design/methodology/approach -Research propositions are advanced based on constructs and theories drawn from the literature on organizational justice, in particular, as well as social psychology in general. Findings -Representatives are hypothesized to have a profound effect on their client's perceptions of voice, participation and satisfaction as well as on the treatment accorded the client by the other side and third-party neutral. Representation, per se, is heralded as neither a positive nor a negative force in workplace dispute resolution processes.Research limitations/implications -The framework of a representative's effects is limited by a focus on individual employees who pursue disputes arising out of the employment relationship against management and, therefore, excludes disputes involving groups as well as non-employment related disputes. Practical implications -Suggestions for expanding or contracting the role of representatives in workplace dispute resolution are discussed. Originality/value -Although it is ubiquitous in US jurisprudence and is a growing presence in alternative dispute resolution, the representative-client dyad has been unexplored. The impact representatives have on the client's perceptions of justice, and the effects representatives have on other stakeholders in the process, bear scrutiny.

The role of face in a Chinese context of trust and trust building

“…Thus, the preservation of face and, principally, loss of lianmian is highly relevant and nonnegotiable in social interactions. In a Chinese context, individuals may build trust to minimize potential loss of face (Farmer and Miller, 2013).…”

“…From the literature, we induced there is agreement that three elements are essential antecedents for trust (e.g. Mayer et al, 1995), of which there is consensus on competence and integrity (Farmer and Miller, 2013; Gosling and Huang, 2009; King and Zhang 2016). Coulter and Coulter (2002: 36) included in the establishment of trust the personal characteristics of “empathy, politeness, and perceived similarity between the (parties in an interaction).”…”

“…Individuals may build trust to achieve specific purposes (e.g. Crawshaw and Brodbeck, 2011; Farmer and Miller, 2013). Trust building may stem from emotions (Chen and Ayoko, 2012), concessions (Servatka et al, 2011), and previous cooperation and experience (Bornhorst et al, 2010; Gonzalez del Campo et al, 2013).…”

“…Individuals living in a society are obliged to share communal work and benefits (Fukuyama, 2011) that over time establish cultural norms and social imperatives (Bowe and Martin, 2007; Farmer and Miller, 2013; Rest et al, 2000; Vanhala et al, 2011). Adherence to social norms is enforced by society, is culturally based, and determined by explicit or implicit imperatives (Bedford, 2004; Bell, 1998; Ehrlich and Feldman, 2003; Rest et al, 2000), to which individuals may choose to conform, or failing conformity, to accept the consequences of transgressions (Perez et al, 2004).…”

Definition of Trust as a Catalyst and the Implications Therefrom: A Deduction from a Literature Review

“…Antecedents include benevolence (e.g., Aurifeille & Medlin, 2009;Mayer et al, 1995), competence (Mayer et al, 1995), integrity (Carter, 1996;Farmer & Miller, 2013;Gosling & Huang, 2009;Palanski & Yammarino, 2009;Vanhala, Puumalainen, & Blomqvist, 2011), reputation (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006, Salehi-Abari & White, 2012, ethics (Odrakiewicz, 2010), the refusal to exploit vulnerabilities in trust relationships (Li, 2008;Murray et al, 2011), fairness (Adams, 1965;King & Zhang, 2018). and predictability (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006).…”