Uncertainty, Fairness Perceptions, and Job Satisfaction: A Field Study

Diekmann, Kristina A.; Barsness, Zoe I.; Sondak, Harris

doi:10.1023/b:sore.0000041292.38626.2f

Cited by 54 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We find that one of the most important organizational characteristics is organizational justice, indicating that studies of job satisfaction can be improved by highlighting connections between job satisfaction and organizational justice (see also Diekmann et al, 2004). We examine this connection by testing three competing explanations for the link between organizational justice and job satisfaction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction: A Test of Three Competing Models

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using nationally representative data, we test three theories about distributive and procedural justice and their relation to job satisfaction. Our results support the group-value model more than the personal outcomes model by showing that procedural justice is a more important predictor of job satisfaction than is distributive justice. Furthermore, although other research has supported the psychological contract model by showing that experiences with downsizing alter how procedural justice and distributive justice are related to organizational commitment, we find that downsizing does not alter their relationship with job satisfaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction: A Test of Three Competing Models

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In doing so, it adds to the growing list of important moderators of the effects of procedural fairness including outcome favorability (e.g., Brockner and Wiesenfeld, 1996), uncertainty (e.g., Diekmann et al, 2004;Van den Bos and Lind, 2002), status salience (e.g., Van Prooijen et al, 2005), organizational commitment (Brockner et al, 1992), and interdependent self-construal (e.g., Brockner et al, 2005). As argued by several researchers (Brockner et al, 2001(Brockner et al, , 2005, it is important for the organizational fairness literature to turn its attention to identifying conditions when procedural fairness is more or less important rather than just examining whether procedural fairness is important.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Fairness Matter More to Some than to Others? The Moderating Role of Workplace Status on The Relationship Between Procedural Fairness Perceptions and Job Satisfaction

2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three field studies explored the relations among status, procedural fairness, and job satisfaction in the workplace. Study 1 revealed that status differences moderated the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction such that there was a stronger relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction for individuals with higher perceived status than for those with lower perceived status. Study 2 examined a possible underlying psychological mechanism for the moderating effect of perceived status-the importance of procedural fairness deservingness-and found that higher levels of perceived status were associated with a greater sense of deservingness for procedural fairness. Extending the results of the first two studies, Study 3 found that procedural fairness deservingness mediated the moderating effect of status on the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction. This research contributes to theories of fairness by further illuminating the role of status in affecting reactions to procedural fairness. This research also contributes to our understanding of status in organizations and shows that perceived status can lead to an increased sense of deservingness.

show abstract

“…De Cremer and Sedikides (2004) demonstrate that self-uncertainty, defined as self-doubt and lack of emotional stability, affects people's need for procedural justice. Diekmann et al (2004) show that procedural justice is a better predictor of job satisfaction when organizational members feel uncertain about the performance standards used for their evaluation than when they feel certain. Overall, the findings from this relatively recent stream of psychology-based justice studies suggest that personality-related and context-related uncertainty impact the formation of justice judgments and their consequences.…”

Section: Literature Review and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…5 In general, uncertainty causes procedural justice to become more salient to the individual. For example, Diekmann et al (2004) show that when uncertainty about job procedures is high, the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction strengthens. Similar arguments and findings are reported by van den Bos and Miedema (2000) and De Cremer and Sedikides (2004).…”

Section: Formality and Task Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%