Organizational Justice:Distributive Fairness and Procedural Fairness
Introduction
Organizations can develop a cultural system that enhances ethical conduct and commitment to compliance by focusing on fairness (Tyler, Dienhart & Terry, 2008). There are no distinct ways of interpreting justice or fairness. However, there are two contextual forms of justice that define organizational fairness. These are distributive fairness and procedural fairness (Hegtvedt, 2004). There is a connection between the two aspects of organizational fairness. People will act in an ethical manner and comply with management if they perceive it as legitimate. This is the case when managerial policies are in congruence with their moral values. Secondly, it is highly likely that employees will perceive management as legitimate and management policies as moral if they perceive organizational processes or procedures as fair.
Distributive Justice
Distributive fairness is the other name for outcome fairness. It defines what persons think they deserve. For instance, if inflation rises by 5% and incomes go up by the same margin people will perceive it as a fair outcome (Tyler, Dienhart & Terry, 2008). Distributive justice operates ate multiple levels. In understanding distributive justice, there are three pivotal questions that normally arise. First, what is justice? Second, how do persons perceive justice, and third, how do people respond to perceived injustice?
There are several abstract ideas that seek to define justice, but there is no absolute definition (Hegtvedt, 2004). Actions are just if people perceive them as legitimate. Justice, in essence, is ideological and involves rationalizations for actions in respect of values of the group and systems. In this regard, justice is a social value that provides a moral basis for social interaction. Legitimacy may also the procedure for constructing an obligation (e.g. policies and rules). There are three criteria for the judging legitimacy of an action or process. First, legitimacy is consensual. Second, it relates to the people’s values and beliefs which act as the basis for judging legitimacy. Third, legitimacy evokes compliance or voluntary acceptance. The criteria are essential in the determination of a possible variation across groups and individuals in relation to perceptions and reactions to legitimacy (Tyler, Dienhart & Terry, 2008).
How do persons perceive justice? This can be answered by considering factors that make disadvantaged individuals or groups accept a system of injustice (Hegtvedt, 2004). Alternatively, one can analyze the reasons why advantaged groups or individuals attempt to change the system that benefits them. Therefore, the analysis looks at the conditions under which individuals or groups (ether or both the advantaged and disadvantaged) legitimize an existing system. The acceptance of a system depends on cognitive and perceptual processes. These include rules of causality, justification, social attributions, consistency, and perceptual bias associated with structural positions. These are mechanisms of information processing that facilitate the potential for acceptance of a system by groups. Perhaps, the disadvantaged individual or group may accept a system or process through the creation of justifications, stereotyping (shaping of contexts or images), or distortions of information. However, mechanisms of perception may be conditioned by situational factors such as foreseen danger or structural positions.
How do people respond to perceived injustice? The nature of legitimacy of a condition determines the likelihood of reaction of compliance. Responses to perceived injustice are both cognitive and behavioral. When a low status group perceives legitimacy in a system there are more likely to respond with a collective favoritism of the system. For instance, an emotional response can cause feelings that may lead to resignation or stimulate social change.
Procedural Justice
Procedural justice applies to the procedures or processes that create outcome (Tyler, Dienhart & Terry, 2008). The processes that operate in organizations and groups have diverse elements (Hegtvedt, 2004). First, there are processes of interactions that link decision making or problem solving to management of group activities. The second group comprises the socioeconomic elements of procedures. In relation to linking decision making to management functions, procedural justice explores whether individuals access an opportunity to articulate their opinions (Tyler, Dienhart & Terry, 2008). This aspect considers whether processes are neutral, fact-based, and transparent. It also determines whether the application of rules and policies is consistent over time and across individuals or groups. The second aspect of procedural justice looks at whether processes of decision making reflect dignity and polite treatment of people. It determines whether a system respects people’s rights and whether authorities are sincere in serving people in the circumstance. Procedural justice does not concern people obtaining what they want. Employees may not be happy with procedurally fair but little compensation. However, their loyalty to the organization is likely to remain.
Conclusion
Research evidence has shown that procedural justice is more essential than distributive justice in enhancing compliance and employee commitment (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005). Procedural fairness creates legitimacy of management and moral policies. This in turn, evokes compliance, employee commitment, and extra-role behavior.
References
Greenberg, J. & Colquitt, A. (2005). “Handbook of Organizational Justice”. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Tyler, T., Dienhart, J. & Terry, T. (2008). “The ethical commitment to compliance: building
Value-based cultures”. California Management Review, 50(2): 31-51
Hegtvedt, K. (2004). “The psychology of legitimacy: emerging perspectives on ideology, justice,
and intergroup relations”. Social Justice Research, 17(1): 93-109
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
