Presented By

Anugamini Priya Sucheta Agarwal

(Research Scholar) (Research
Scholar)

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES,

 JUSTICE
‗Justice defines the very essence of
individuals
relationship to employers…. Injustice is
hurtful to individuals and harmful to
organizations‘
‘Justice, Sir, is the greatest
interest of man on earth’
Justice or fairness refers to
the idea—Daniel Webster
that an action or
decision is morally right,
 Organizational justice
It is a personal evaluation about the
ethical and moral standing of managerial
conduct.
 It refers to how an employee judges the
behaviour of the organization and their
resulting attitude and behaviour that
comes from this.
(Greenberg ,1987 )
Ethics Religion Fairness Law.

Organizational
Justice

i
s
s
u
e
s

perceptions of fair pay, equal opportunities for promotion, and

personnel selection procedures

(Tabibnia, Satpute, & Lieberman, 2008).

 Evolution
 The idea of organizational justice stems
from Equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965)of
motivation, which posits that judgments of
equity and inequity are derived from
comparisons between one‘s self and others
based on inputs and outcomes.
 Inputs refer to what a person perceives to
contribute (e.g., knowledge and effort).
 Outcomes are what an individual perceives to
get out of an exchange relationship (e.g., pay
and recognition).
 Comparison points against which these inputs
and outcomes are judged may be internal
(one‘s self at an earlier time) or external (other
individuals).
 Three reasons why justice
matters to people
 Long-range benefits.
The ‗control model‘ proposes that people are often
motivated by economic and quasi-economic
interests .
 Social considerations:
The ―group-value model,‖ just treatment tells us
that we are respected and esteemed by the larger
group.
 Ethical considerations
When individuals witness an event they believe is
ethically inappropriate, they are likely to take
considerable risks in the hopes of extracting
retribution.

(Russell Cropanzano, David E. Bowen, and Stephen W. GillilandT, 2007, The

Management of Organizational Justice , Academy of Management Perspectives, 34-48)
 Types of organizational justice

Distributive Justice: Appropriateness of

outcomes.
● Equity: Rewarding employees based on
their contributions.
● Equality: Providing each employee
roughly the same compensation.
● Need: Providing a benefit based on
one‘s personal requirements.
--Aristotle,
 Procedural Justice:
Appropriateness of the allocation process.
● Consistency: All employees are treated the
same.
● Lack of Bias: No person or group is singled out
for discrimination or ill treatment.
● Accuracy: Decisions are based on accurate
information.
● Representation of All Concerned: Appropriate
stakeholders have input into a decision.
● Correction: There is an appeals process or other
mechanism for fixing mistakes.
● Ethics: Norms of professional conduct are not
violated.

--Leventhal et al., 1976, 1980

Fair Process Effect

Copyright© 2011 Pearson Education, 2-

Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 10
 Interactional Justice: Appropriateness of
the treatment one receives from authority
figures.
● Interpersonal Justice: Treating an
employee with dignity, courtesy, and
respect.
● Informational Justice: Sharing relevant
information with employees.
--Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001

(Russell Cropanzano, David E. Bowen, and Stephen W.

GillilandT, 2007, The Management of Organizational Justice
, Academy of Management Perspectives, 34-48)
Goldman studied the relationship between justice and filing legal
claims for alleged workplace discrimination and found that claimants were most
likely to pursue litigation when distributive, procedural, and interactional justice were
all low. If just one component of justice was judged to be high, the likelihood of a
legal claim dropped. (2003)
 Antecedents of organizational
justice perceptions
Employee participation
 Extent to which employees feel that
they are involved in decision-making
or other organizational procedures.
(Greenberg & Folger, 1983; Bies &
Shapiro, 1988).
 In addition, other studies have shown
that employee input is related to both
procedural and interpersonal justice
perceptions (Kernan & Hanges, 2002).
Leadership:
 Historical and theoretical experiments
prove the direct relations of leadership
to decision making and organizational
justice.
 in just and ethical environment, the
decisions that leaders make reflects
fair treatment of people & are
concerned for their welfare.
(B. Charles tatum, 2003)
Communication
 The quality of communication by an organization or
manager can improve justice perceptions by
improving employee perceptions of manager
trustworthiness and also by reducing feelings of
uncertainty (Kernan & Hanges, 2002).
 It is important that the information provided be
accurate, timely, and helpful in order for the impact
on justice perceptions to be positive (Schweiger &
DeNisi, 1991).
Justice climate
 Recent research suggests that team level
perceptions of justice form what is called a ‗justice
climate‘ which can impact individuals‘ own views of
justice (Li & Cropanzano, 2009).
 Research findings shows that individuals can
―learn‖ justice evaluations from team members and
these can lead to homogeneity of justice
perceptions within teams, creating a strong justice
climate (Roberson & Colquitt, 2005).
Outcomes of organizational
justice
 Employees‘ perceptions of injustice within the
organization can result in a myriad of
outcomes both positive and negative.
Trust on supervisor
 A positive relationship between an employee
and supervisor can lead to trust in the
organization (Karriker & Williams, 2009)
(Hubbell & Chory-Assad, 2005; Cohen-
Charash & Spector, 2001;Konosvky and
Pugh, 1994). .
Performance
 Improving justice perceptions improves
productivity and performance (Karriker &
Williams, 2009).
Job satisfaction and organizational commitment
 was found to be positively associated with overall
perceptions of organizational justice (Al-Zu‘bi, 2010).
(DeConick, 2010; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).

Organizational citizenship behaviors are actions

 that employees take to support the organization that
go above and beyond the scope of their job
description. OCBs are related to both procedural
justice (DeConick, 2010; Cohen-Charash &
Spector, 2001; Karriker & Williams, 2009) and
distributive justice perceptions (Cohen-Charash &
Spector, 2001; Karriker & Williams, 2009).
Counterproductive work behaviors
• Increased judgments of procedural injustice, for
instance, can lead to employee unwillingness
to comply with an organization‘s rules.
Thus, the more perceptions of procedural
injustice lead employees to perceived
normative conflict, the more it is likely that
CWBs occur. (Cohen-Charash &
Spector, 2001) (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara &
Verano-Tacoronte, 2007)

Absenteeism and withdrawal

• Failure to receive a promotion is an example of
a situation in which feelings of injustice may
result in an employee being absent from work
without reason. Johns (2001)(Cohen-Charash
& Spector, 2001).
Emotional exhaustion
• which related to employee health and burnout, is
related to overall organizational justice perceptions.
As perceptions of justice increase employee health
increases and (Liljegren & Ekberg, 2009)
CASE STUDY: KEY POINTS
 Sarah was a trainee; joined Ashu Joshi's
five-member team as Assistant Systems
Engineer at Caremark.
 Moved to CVS Caremark project at TCS-
Noida after a successful stint at Tegro
project in TCS-Bangalore.
 Caremark offered better career prospects
;handsome pay hike for becoming a
confirmed employee +USA or UK project
 Comparisons between
bosses:
Ashu :
 Team leader of CVS Caremark project –Autocratic style
 Does not interfere with subordinates work and leaves them
alone to do their work without any guidance
 Efficient at what he did and extremely intelligent, but neither
had time nor the inclination to groom his subordinates
 If work did not get finished on time, he would just blame the
team, and totally disassociate himself from them.
Sudhir Reddy:
 TL of Tegro Project – participative cum democratic style
 A guide and mentor - always guiding, but never interfering.
 Allows to make own mistakes and learn from them and had
always encouraged individual ideas, and let the team
discover the flaws, if any, through discussion
and experience.
 considered responsibility for any failure was collective
The issue:
 New project was facing a few glitches
with the new software
 Sarah thought about the problem &
drawn several possible solutions
 Unexpected response from Ashu Joshi
disturbed her.
 Work environment a bit dull- no
participation in discussions from other
employees.
Few statements:
 Ashu said: ‗I will send an email with the
solution to all the members of the team
by the end of the day.
 Sanjay, one of the team
members, said, "What is the point in our
discussing these things? Ashu is not
going to have time to listen to us or
discuss anything.
 Sarah felt ―I didn't really need to think;
my boss had all the answers‖.
 And turned into mediocre techie.
 Verifying questions- Was Sarah
treated fairly?

 Were you ever treated rudely or

disrespectfully?
 Were you up for a promotion / raise /
job, and didn‘t get it when you thought
you should have?
 Why was it unfair? How did you know?
 How did you react? Did you take
action? Why or why not?
Prospective Implications of
injustice
 No participation on the part of
employees
 Reduction in
productivity, creativity, innovative
ideas & commitment.
 Lack of smoother communication
between leader and subordinate.
 Lack of external motivation and
learning environment.
 Absenteeism ,turnover or counter
productive work behaviors
 Process to create perceptions of
organizational justice
• Selection Procedures: Positive Job
Candidates
• Building Justice Into Management Systems

• Reward Systems: Justly Balancing Multiple

Goals
• Conflict Management: You Don‘t Have to Win

• Layoffs: Softening Hardship

• Performance Appraisals: Keeping Score Fairly

(Russell Cropanzano, David E. Bowen, and Stephen W. GillilandT, 2007, The Management
of Organizational Justice , Academy of Management Perspectives, 34-48)
 Ways to promote
organizational justice
 Pay workers what they deserve
 Follow open and fair procedures
 Offer workers a voice
 Meet regularly and invite input
 Conduct employee surveys
 Keep an ―open door policy‖
 Use suggestion system
Copyright© 2011 Pearson 2-
Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice 28