Justice,Fairness,and Employee Reactions Jason A.Colquitt and Kate P.Zipay Department of Management,Terry College of Business,University of Georgia;email:colq@uga.edu Annu.Rev.Organ.Psychol.Organ.Behav.2015.2:75–99First published online as a Review in Advance on December 24,2014The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior is online at This article ’s doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111457Copyright ©2015by Annual Reviews.
All rights rerved Keywords exchange,affect,heuristic,uncertainty,status,ethics Abstract Of all the issues that employees consider in organizational life,justice and fairness are among the most salient.Justice reflects the perceived adherence to rules that reprent appropriateness in decision contexts (e.g.,equity,consistency,respect,truthfulness).Fairness reflects a more global perception of appropriateness that lies downstream of justice.Our review integrates justice theories (fairness heuristic the-
ory,the relational model,the group engagement model,fairness the-
ory,deonance theory,uncertainty management theory)and broader
theories (social exchange theory,affective events theory)to examine
three questions:(a )Why do employees think about justice issues in
the first place?(b )how do employees form fairness perceptions?and
(c )how do employees react to tho perceptions?We clo by de-
scribing how justice and fairness can be managed in organizations,
especially given new technological trends in how people work.
75
A n n u . R e v . O r g a n . P s y c h o l . O r g a n .
B e h a v . 2015.2:75-99. D o w n l o a d e d f r o m w w w .a n n u a l r e v i e w s .o r g A c c e s s p r o v i d e d b y T s i n g h u a U n i v e r s i t y o n 07/22/15. F o r p e r s o n a l u s e o n l y .O
nline Video: What We Learned from Our Justice Review: Takeaways from a Veteran and a Newcomer to the Justice Literature
Click here for quick links to Annual Reviews content online, including:• Other articles in this volume • Top cited articles • Top downloaded articles • Our comprehensive arch Further ANNUAL REVIEWS
INTRODUCTION Justice and fairness are issues that resonate in many realms of life.Children consider the fairness of rewards and punishments.Students ponder the justice of grades.Citizens debate the fairness of national elections and governmental policies.Employees focus on the justice of key decisions and events in the workplace.It is this latter thread that interests scholars in organizational psychology and organizational behavior.Indeed,it was 30years ago that Folger &Greenberg (1985,p.176)drew a bridge between “pure science ”and “applied science ”by describing the relevance of justice and fairness to performance appraisal,compensation,participative decision making,and conflict resolution.Although the literature has tended to treat justice and fairness as interchangeable construct
justice rules reflect appropriateness in decision outcomes and include equity,equality,and need (Adams 1965,Leventhal 1976).Procedural justice rules reflect appropriateness in decision-making procedures and include voice,consistency,accuracy,bias suppression,and correctability (Leventhal 1980,Thibaut &Walker 1975).Interpersonal justice rules reflect appropriateness as procedures are enacted and include respect and propriety (Bies &Moag 1986,Greenberg 1993).Informational justice rules reflect the appropriateness of the explanations offered for procedures and include truthfulness
and justification (Bies &Moag 1986,Greenberg 1993).We define fairness as a global perception of appropriateness —a perception that tends to lie theoretically downstream of justice (Colquitt &Rodell 2015).Consider an employee who is struck by the accuracy of a boss ’s data gathering during a performance appraisal and thinks highly of her boss as a result.That scenario reprents (procedural)justice shaping fairness.Note that past reviews tended to treat the justice –fairness distinction as one of measurement style,with as-ssments of justice rules described as indirect measures and asssments that ud the word fair described as direct measures (Colquitt &Shaw 2005,Lind &Tyler 1988).We believe it is time to u distinct terms for justice and fairness becau more and more scholars are operationalizing both in their studies,often with fairness mediating the effects of justice (Ambro &Schminke 2009,Kim &Leung 2007).Our performance appraisal example highlights additional points needed to understand justice and fairness.As shown in Figure 1,justice and fairness are focud on some target —typically a supervisor or an organization (Rupp &Cropanzano 2002).Our example focus on a super-visor,but scholars could just as easily study the accuracy of an organization ’s appraisal system or the fairness of the firm.Regardless of the focus,measuring justice and fairness involves bracketing an employee ’s experiences in some way (Cropanzano et al.2001).The justice in our example was
bracketed around a single appraisal event —an approach that is fairly common in the literature.Other times justice will be measured by focusing employees on a collection of multiple events.For example,Colquitt ’s (2001)measure is often tailored to focus on decisions about pay,rewards,evaluations,promotions,etc.(Colquitt &Rodell 2015).The fairness in our example referenced the supervisor as a complete entity —presumably reprenting an aggregate of all relevant events.Figure 1also illustrates that justice and fairness can be referenced to any or all of the distributive,procedural,interpersonal,and informational dimensions.Tho dimensions have been made translucent for fairness in the figure becau it has become more common to eschew tho di-mensional distinctions in favor of a focus on overall fairness (Ambro &Schminke 2009,Kim &Leung 2007).
Scholars draw on a number of models and theories to understand the antecedents and con-quences of justice and fairness.Indeed,the literature has become one of the more theory-rich 76Colquitt Zipay A n n u . R e v . O r g a n . P s y c h o l . O r g a n . B e h a v . 2015.2:75-99. D o w n l o a d e d f r o m w w w .a n n u a l r e v i e w s .o r g
A
c
c
e
s
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
T
s
i
n
g
h
u
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
o
n
7
/2
2
/1窦太主
5
.
F
o
r
假如我是班长
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
n
l
y
.
content areas in organizational psychology and organizational behavior.Many of tho models and theories were introduced by justice scholars to explain phenomena in the justice literature.Tho include fairness heuristic theory (Lind 2001a,Van den Bos 2001a),the relational model and group engagement model (Tyler &Blader 2003,Tyler &Lind 1992),fairness theory and deonance theory (Folger 2001,Folger &Cropanzano 2001),and uncertainty management theory (Lind &Van den Bos 2002,Van den Bos &Lind 2002).Although the lens have been instrumental for examining a number of rearch questions,justice scholars also draw on theories in other realms of organizational psychology and organizational behavior.The most notable examples are social exchange theory and affective events theory (Blau 1964,Weiss &Cropanzano 1996).
The purpo of our review is to integrate all of the theoretical lens to examine three questions.Fi
rst,why do employees think about justice issues in the first place —what caus them to ponder issues of equity,accuracy,respect,truthfulness,and the like?Second,how do employees form fairness perceptions —how do they aggregate specific justice experiences into an overall perception?Third,how do employees react to fairness perceptions —what behaviors result,and why do they result?As our review shows,the justice-specific theories and the two broader theories are all needed to attempt to answer the questions.Our review then explores how the insights can be ud to manage justice and fairness in organizations,especially given new technological trends in how people work.
Figure 1Measurement decisions when asssing justice and fairness.77
Justice,Fairness,and Employee Reactions A n n u . R e v . O r g a n . P s y c h o l . O r g a n . B e h a v . 2015.2:75-99. D o w n l o a d e d f r o m w w w .a n n u a l r e v i e w s .o r g A c c e s s p r o v i d e d b y T s i n g h u a U n i v e r s i t y o n 07/22/15. F o r p e r s o n a l u s e o n l y .Online Video: How Exactly Should You Measure Justice?
WHY DO EMPLOYEES THINK ABOUT JUSTICE ISSUES?
Before employees can judge how just or fair their supervisors or organizations are,they have to atten
d to such issues in the first place.How do the theories described in our review explain that attention to justice issues?As shown in Figure 2,most of the theories involve uncertainty —a condition under which something is not known or something is doubted.Employees feel a n of uncertainty about something and —as a result —devote more focud attention to justice issues.The theories vary in how explicit a role they devote to uncertainty and what exactly it is that employees are uncertain about.Uncertainty About Trustworthiness
In explaining why employees think about justice issues,two of the theories shown in Figure 2emphasize uncertainty about trustworthiness.We begin with social exchange theory becau it is the oldest theory in our t,it was the first to be applied to justice phenomena,and it remains the most oft-evoked lens in the literature.Blau (1964)contrasted two kinds of exchange relationships.Economic exchanges are contractual in character and are governed by a clearly specified schedule of benefits and reciprocations.For example,an employee completes required tasks in exchange for a regular paycheck.Social exchanges,by contrast,are marked by a deeper level of investment in which unspecified benefits and reciprocations are exchanged over a long-term,open-ended time frame.For example,an employee “goes the extra mile ”to help a newcomer while believing that —at
Social exchange theory Fairness heuristic theory Relational model/group engagement model Fairness theory/deonance theory Affective events theory Uncertainty Management theory Figure 2
Different theoretical perspectives on the experience of justice and fairness.
78Colquitt Zipay
A n n u . R e v . O r g a n . P s y c h o l . O r g a n .
B e h a v . 2015.2:75-99. D o w n l o a d e d f r o m w w w .a n n u a l r e v i e w s .o r g A c c e s s p r o v i d e d b y T s i n g h u a U n i v e r s i t y o n 07/22/15. F o r p e r s o n a l u s e o n l y .Online Video: Putting It all Together: Integrating Justice Theories
some point and in some way —he will get “repaid ”by his supervisor for tho efforts.Becau of their inherent flexibility and depth of investment,social exchanges are viewed as more effective in the long term than economic exchanges.
What if an employee doubts that “extra mile ”efforts will be repaid in time?Blau (1964,p.98)address such concerns in describing how social exchanges take root:“Since social exchange requires trusting others to reciprocate,the initial problem is to prove onelf trustworthy ....As individuals regularly discharge their obligations,they prove themlves trustworthy of further credit.”Thus,if faced with an opportunity to do something “extra,”an employee should stop to consider whether his supervisor is trustworthy.If she is,then his behaviors will likely be rewarded somewhere down the line.Although Blau (1964)did not discuss justice issues in this context,Organ (1990)did so in a subquent articulation of social exchange principles.He argued that justice could s
erve a similar exchange-deepening function over time,noting,“If the person feels that the overall exchange,over some relevant interval,is ‘fair,’he or she will not feel the need to provide any preci accounting of marginal benefit for marginal contribution ”(p.64).Thus,at least implicitly,social exchange theorizing views uncertainty about trustworthiness as a reason for
focusing on justice issues.
The linkage between uncertainty about trustworthiness and a focus on justice is much more
explicit in fairness heuristic theory —the first justice-centric theory covered in our review (e Lind
2001a,Van den Bos 2001a).This theory is inspired by what Lind (2001a)termed the fundamental
social dilemma —that employees must repeatedly decide whether to embrace cooperation or avoid
cooperation.Embracing cooperation opens up avenues for greater gains but brings with it the risk
of exploitation and rejection.Avoiding cooperation encourages lf-sufficiency but forgoes the
chance at the outcomes that can be achieved only with collective action.Trustworthiness becomes
relevant to that fundamental social dilemma becau the risks of exploitation em lower if
authorities are trustworthy.That dynamic is not unlike one exchange partner deciding that
another is worthy of some benefit —even though repayment cannot be guaranteed (Blau 1964).
Importantly,fairness heuristic theory argues that trustworthiness is difficult to ascertain,as it is
dependent upon qualities and characteristics that are difficult to obrve and evaluate.Here is
where the connection to justice becomes more explicit than in social exchange theory.Van den Bos
(2001a,p.73)writes,“Do people often have direct information about an authority ’s trust-
worthiness?We suggested that they frequently do not ....We suggested that in such situations —in
which information about the authority ’s trustworthiness is missing —people refer to the fairness of
the authority ’s procedures to decide how to react to the outcome.”The argument is that adherence
to rules like equity,consistency,respect,and justification is more obrvable than qualities like
competence,integrity,and benevolence.Many of the theory ’s propositions have been supported in laboratory rearch.For example,Van den Bos et al.(1998)showed that the effects of justice on reactions were stronger when information on authority trustworthiness was lacking than when it was prent.
Uncertainty About Status
Lind ’s (2001a)discussion of the fundamental social dilemma also describes how being rejected by an authority can harm one ’s identity.That obrvation echoes earlier theorizing on the relational model (Tyler &Lind 1992).That model argues that employees are social creatures who are especially attentive to signals that convey their status in relevant groups.Status is a key con-sideration becau group memberships validate people ’s identities and compri a large part of their esteem.The relational model argues that justice is one of the most potent signals of status (Tyler &Lind 1992).When a supervisor treats an employee with respect,that act signals that the
Justice,Fairness,and Employee Reactions A n n u . R e v . O r g a n . P s y c h o l . O r g a n . B e h a v . 2015.2:75-99. D o w n l o a d e d f r o m w w w .a n n u a l r e v i e w s .o r g
A c
c e
s
s
p
r
o
v i
d
e d
b
y
T
s i
n
g
h u
a
U
n
i v
e
r
s i
t
y
o
n
07
/22
/1
5.
F
土家酱香饼
o r
p e
r
s
o n
a
l
u
s
wps页码怎么设置
e
o
n
l y年终总结大会
.
employee is valued by the workgroup —that the employee has a certain standing.By contrast,when a supervisor treats an employee in a biad manner,it signals that the employee is at the fringe of the group and is someone of questionable status.Although applications of the relational model have tended to focus more on the effects of justice than on the conditions that increa the focus on it,some tests do support the arguments described above.For example,a laboratory study by Smith et al.(1998)showed that the relationship be-tween favorable treatment by an authority and participant lf-esteem was stronger when the experimenter was from the same university as the participants.Presumably the existence of the shared affiliation aroud concerns about status,making treatment more salient.The relational model ’s focus on status and group memberships has since been folded into Tyler &Blader ’s (2003)group engagement model.That model focus more explicitly on the outcomes of justice,so it is described in a subquent ction.Uncertainty About Morality An outsider to the literature would likely assume that morality con
cepts were tightly woven into discussions of justice.After all,justice plays a salient role in philosophical treatments of ethics (Kant 1795,Rawls 1971),and Leventhal (1980)argued that ethicality is an important procedural justice rule.Surprisingly,morality concepts stayed at the fringes of the justice literature for its first few decades,largely due to its roots in social psychology rather than philosophy.That paration began to change with the introduction of fairness theory (Folger &Cropanzano 2001).Fairness theory focus on when authorities are held accountable for their conduct,with that accountability dependent on three counterfactuals.Specifically,authorities are held accountable when some event could have played out differently,when authorities should have acted differently,and when well-being would have been better if tho alternatives had transpired.Consider a ca in which an employee receives a smaller than expected rai from her boss.That employee will blame the boss when the rai could have been higher (e.g.,the merit pool was big enough to allocate more funds),when the rai should have been higher (e.g.,a bigger rai would have been more equitable and derved),and when well-being would have been better given alternative events (e.g.,a larger rai would have significantly affected well-being).Issues of morality are wrapped up in the “should ”portion of fairness theory.In deciding whether authorities should have acted differently,employees compare authority actions to prevailing ethical and moral standards (Folger &Cropanzano 2001).Deciding that an authority should have acted differently means the authority viol
ated some norm of conduct —a decision that should trigger a n of unfairness and blame.In practice,most studies employing fairness theory
have either manipulated the should counterfactual or left it as an unmeasured aspect of their theorizing (Colquitt &Chertkoff 2002,Gilliland et al.2001).An exception was a study by Nicklin et al.(2011).Using a policy-capturing design,the authors gave participants a chance to react to an event by describing their thoughts in an open-ended fashion.The results revealed that authorities who failed to act appropriately in an adver situation triggered more counterfactual thoughts,with tho counterfactual thoughts being associated with lower fairness perceptions.
Whereas concerns about morality are wrapped up in one of fairness theory ’s three mechanisms,they stand front and center in a subquent offshoot of it.Deonance theory argues that employees think about justice issues becau virtue is its own reward (Folger 2001,Folger et al.2005).That is,individuals care about adherence to norms of morality in and of itlf,whether in the evaluation of their own behavior,the behavior of their authority figures,or even the behavior of some un-connected third party.Becau justice reprents the way people ought to behave —indeed,the deon in the theory ’s moniker comes from the Greek word for obligation —it is of central interest in 80Colquitt Zipay A n n u . R e v . O r g a n . P s y c h o l . O r g a n . B e h a v . 2015.2:75-99. D o w
n l o a d e d f r o m w w w .a n n u a l r e v i e w s .o r g A
c
c
e
s
s
p
r
母爱素材o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
T
s
i
n
g
h
u
a
秋天有什么花开放
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
o
n
7
/2
2
前额白发/1
5
.
F
o
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
n
l
y .
