Research do in fact bring from others” (Blau,

Research on organizational justice own a history of 40years old (see Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzanoand Greenberg, 1997 for literature reviews), but it has been more considered inrecent years. Organizationaljustice refers to the feelings of equity of the allocation of rewards (e.g.

,pay and promotions) to individuals respect to their inputs (e.g., training andeffort) (Bolton & Ockenfels, 2000; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998;Parker & Kohlmeyer, 2005). One of thebackground theories of organizational justice is equity theory (Adams, 1963,1965), which refers to comparison between one’s self and others incomes and outcomes.In addition to equity theory, fairness heuristic theory (Lind, 2001; Van den Bos,2001a), uncertainty management theory (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002; Van denBos & Lind, 2002), and fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001) havebeen introduced in justice literature in these recent years.

Social exchangetheory, as a central framework defines social exchange as “the voluntary actions ofindividuals that are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring andtypically do in fact bring from others” (Blau, 1964, p. 91; DeConinck, 2010). Fairness is an importantdimension of social exchange theory which researchers haveinvestigated its relationship with individuals’ attitudes and behaviours in theorganizations (see Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001 and Colquitt, etal., 2001). DeConinck (2010) believes that fair behavior in the organizations improvetrustful connection between higher status people and lower status ones and thenleads to positive outcomes. According to Folger and Cropanzano (1998; 2001) andColquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng (2001), unfair condition forms people’sperceptions of unfairness in the organization and agitates them to analyzetheir commitment to the organization as well as prompts different negativeemotional and behavioural reactions in the workplace.

According to Cropanzano, massaro & Becker (2017)there are three motives for justice. The first category of motives regarding tothe instrumental model, refers to preferences of justice because of itslong-term control on valuable results. The second category, group-value model, highlightsthe relationship and interaction of colleagues and workforces in a socialcontext (Blader and Tyler 2015).

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

Strictly speaking, fairtreatments cause that group members get respect within the group (e.g., Tylerand Blader, 2000).

The final approach that indicates why individuals care about the organizationaljustice, is deontic model arguing that employees follow justice not simplybecause of the benefits of justice, but because of the justice criteria and values.In other words, in this model, people’s motivation for having justice does not comefrom pragmatic reasons, but comes from ethical values or justice rules (Folger, 2011;Hannah et al. 2014).Justice rules are rooted in socialized or internalizedstandard values which bring ethical duties for individuals in the particularsettings (Lau and Wong, 2009, p. 281). Researchers demonstrate that this model ofdealing with justice issue is context oriented and morally depended (Nicklin etal. 2011; Cropanzano and Moliner 2013), so they name it “principlism” (e.

g.,Batson 1999, p. 303; Blader and Tyler 2001, p. 235).Justice rules have been categorized into three groups(Cropanzano et al.

2015) includedistributive, procedural, and interactional justice (Colquitt, Greenberg, &Zapata-Phelan, 2005; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Colquitt, Scott, Judge andShaw (2006) stated that procedural and interactional justice rules (e.g., bias,ethicality, respectfulness, and honesty) are more “morally charged”than distributive notions such as met expectations, reward-costproportionality, and outcome/input proportion comparisons.Distributive justice is achieved when allocation of aresource is fair and all groups consider their share of a resource as fair(Adams, 1965; Walster et al.

, 1978; for an overview, see Hegtvedt & Cook,2000). The early works on organizational justice which had focused more ondistributive justice (Adams, 1965), demonstrated that employee’s perceptionof inequality was related to dissatisfaction with outcomes (DeConinck andStilwell, 2004). Procedural justice emphasizes on the procedures used formaking decision. Thibaut and Walker (1975) and Leventhal, (1980) in discussingabout procedural justice address to the norms of procedural fairness indecision-making such as consistency across persons and time, being unbiased, accuracy, havingcapacity to correct and representativeness.

Different from distributivejustice, procedural justice focuses more on organizational commitment and pleasurewith procedures in the organizations (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). Leventhal (1980)stated that allocations of rewards should be fair laterally between individualsand longitudinally over time (Cropanzano et al.

2015; Zapata-phelan, Colquitt, Scottand Livinstone, 2009).In other words, fairness should be in the equality of opportunities for anyemployees to get rewards associated to their efforts and this rule should beconsistent overtime. Tyler and Lind (1992) underlined the group value modelthat proposed humans as the basically social beings whose values are realizedwithin the groups.

According to this model, fair decision making considersemployee’s rights in the groups valuable and respectful (Lind & Tyler,1988; Tyler et al., 1996; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Therefore, for assessing howmuch organization treat fairly with individuals; employees evaluateauthorities’ interactions with themselves (Tyler, 1989). During thisevaluation, they can understand whether authorities have behaved neutrally andunbiased toward them, because biased interaction could lead to negative employeeattitudes against the organization. In spite of the differences, these twoconcepts have similarities. For instances, in the neutrality (Tyler, 1989) wecan see the consistency of the rule applications across employees, while in theinconsistency (Leventhal, 1980) we can find discrimination in the allocationsof the opportunities.

Interactional justice is third type ofjustice, which centers more on the relations, and interpersonalreactions received from another person(e.g., Bies, 2001; Tyler, 1989; Tyler, Rasinski, & Spodick,1985). The core concepts of this justice focus on the need for trust, respect,and dignity within interactions with others. The major difference between this facetsof organizational justice with procedural one is that the feeling ofinteractional justice is directed toward superiors, but in the proceduralinjustice, the perception of inequality is directed toward the organization.

Some researchers believe that this type could bedivided to two subscales, interpersonal justice referring tosincerity and respect whichpeople receive from authorities and informational justice relates tokeeping individuals informed honestly and adequately through clarifications(e.g., Colquitt et al.

2001; cf. Colquitt and Rodell, 2015).