Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:48:35.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applying Organizational Justice: Questionable Claims and Promising Suggestions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Jerald Greenberg
Jerald Greenberg*
Affiliation:
RAND Corporation
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401-3208
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With an eye toward promoting applications of organizational justice, I respond to commentaries on my focal article (Greenberg, 2009a). Specifically, I challenge questionable claims regarding (a) characterization of applied research, (b) why we don't conduct more applied justice research, (c) moral versus instrumental rationales for promoting justice, (d) the validity of intervention studies, and (e) interpretations of Lewin's classic observation about the practical value of theory. I also identify and comment upon two suggestions for promoting applied justice research: (a) promoting cooperation between researchers and practitioners and (b) conducting comprehensive, integrative interventions.

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 230 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–99). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177–198.10.1007/BF01048015Google Scholar
Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually distinct? In Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 59–84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295–305.10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.295Google Scholar
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653–658.10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653Google Scholar
Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (2009). Greenberg doth protest too much: Application always has been, and victims and morality always will be critical for advancing organizational justice research. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 201–204.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01134.xGoogle Scholar
Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In Greenberg, J. & Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., & Weisenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.189Google Scholar
Byrne, Z. S. (2009). What we don't know about justice: Behaviors and bridging the scientist–practitioner gap. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 217–220.Google Scholar
Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 197–207.10.1086/208856Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 360–400.10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Scott, B. A. (2005). Organizational justice: Where do we stand? In Greenberg, J. & Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 589–620). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Conlon, D. E., Meyer, C. J., & Nowakowski, J. M. (2005). How does organizational justice affect performance, withdrawal, and counterproductive behavior? In Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 301–328). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 34–48.10.5465/amp.2007.27895338Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). Deontic justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1019–1024.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to organizational justice. In Ferris, J. (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 20, pp. 1–113). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In Rowland, K. & Ferris, G. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 3, pp. 141–83). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Gelso, C. J. (2006). On the making of a scientist–practitioner: A theory of research training in professional psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8, 3–16.10.1037/1931-3918.S.1.3Google Scholar
Gillespie, J. Z., & Greenberg, J. (2005). Is organizational justice self-interested? In Greenberg, J. & Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 179–214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gilliland, S. W. (2009). More application than acknowledged. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 199–200.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01133.xGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1982). Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations. In Greenberg, J. & Cohen, R. L. (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 389–435). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342.10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.340Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment allocations: Do the ends justify the means? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55–61.10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.55Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden costs of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55–61.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81–103.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (2001). The seven loose can(n)ons of organizational justice. In Greenberg, J. & Cropanzano, R. (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 245–271). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (2006a). Losing sleep over organizational injustice: Attenuating insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 58–69.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (2006b). Positive organizational justice: From fair to fairer—and beyond. In Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 159–178). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (2009a). Everybody talks about organizational justice, but nobody does anything about it. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 181–195.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (2009b). Promote procedural and interactional justice to enhance individual and organizational outcomes. In Locke, E. A. (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior (2nd ed.) (pp. 255–271). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J., & Ganegoda, D. (2007). Emotions in organizations: Directions and delusions. In De Cremer, D. (Ed.), Emotions in organizations (pp. 261–292). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J., & Lind, E. A. (2000). The pursuit of organizational justice: From conceptualization to implication to application. In Cooper, C. L., & Locke, E. A. (Eds.), I/O psychology: What we know about theory and practice (pp. 72–105). Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. E., Bauer, J., Erol, H. T., Saboe, K., Tan, J. A., et al. (2009). How prevalent are the different types of organizational justice research? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 196–198.Google Scholar
Landy, F. J. (2008). Stereotyping, implicit association theory, and personnel decisions: I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 444–453.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, J. (2009). Promoting organizational justice: It's even worse than that! Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 221–225.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01138.xGoogle Scholar
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Gergen, K. J., Greenberg, M. S., & Willis, R. H. (Eds.), Social exchanges: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1951/1997). Resolving social conflict and field theory in social science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Lopez, D. P. (2009). Studying organizational justice theory application in the field: A practitioner's perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 226–229.Google Scholar
Miles, J., & Greenberg, J. (1993). Cross-national differences in preferences for distributive justice norms: The challenge of establishing fair resource allocations in the European community. In Shaw, J. B., Kirkbride, P. S., & Rowland, K. M. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Supplement 3, pp. 133–156). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Milkovich, G., & Newman, J. (2007). Compensation (9th ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rupp, D. E., & Aquino, K. F. (2009). Nothing so practical as a good justice theory. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 205–210.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01135.xGoogle Scholar
Rupp, D. E., Baldwin, A. M., & Bashshur, M. R. (2005). Using developmental assessment centers to foster workplace fairness. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 9, 145–170.10.1207/s15503461tpmj0902_6Google Scholar
Sashkin, M., & Williams, R. L. (1990). Does fairness make a difference? Organizational Dynamics, 19, 56–71.Google Scholar
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Effects of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 294–304.10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.294Google Scholar
Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432–443.10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.432Google Scholar
Somers, M. (2009). The sounds of silence: A perspective on applied research on organizational justice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 215–216.Google Scholar
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tyler, T., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 642–655.Google Scholar
Vansteenkiste, M., & Sheldon, K. M. (2006). There's nothing more practical than a good theory: Integrating motivational interviewing and self-determination theory. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 63–82.Google Scholar