(2008) 'Hypocrisies of fairness : towards a more reexive ethical base in organizational justice research and practice.', Journal of business ethics., 78 (3). pp. 415-433. Further information on publisher's website:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9330-z Publisher's copyright statement:The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. As part of our argument, we identify three types of mechanisms managers may use to influence and manage the formation of fairness perceptions. We consider how the exercise of power is related to the potential application of organizational justice knowledge across individual, interpersonal and social levels. Our approach makes power dynamics and moral implications salient, and questions the purely subjectivist view of justice researchers that deliberately discards normative aspects. The questions opened up by considering alternative mechanisms for creating fairness perceptions have led us to formulate a research agenda for organizational justice research that takes multiple stakeholder interests, power dynamics and ethical implications into account. We believe that the fields of organizational justice and normative justice can benefit from combined research.

Organizational justice is concerned with people's fairness perceptions in organizations and has been a popular field of study in the social sciences for at least 25 years. This paper reviews the core concepts, models and questions of organizational justice research. Four research areas that are particularly critical for the future of the field will be highlighted: concept clarification, social context integration, time and links with morality. These areas have received increased attention lately, but there are still relatively few empirical studies and theoretical frameworks that grapple with these issues. Concept clarification is vital for improved consistency of the field and for internal validity of studies. Situating organizational justice in social contexts and in time will be crucial to improve external validity and the usability of organizational justice findings in organizations. Understanding the links between morality and justice at an individual level, and at the organizational and societal levels is necessary if justice researchers want to live up to the promise of their field for society. For each of these four areas, recent developments will be reviewed and avenues for future research discussed.

How do individuals form fairness perceptions? This question has been central to the fairness literature since its inception, sparking a plethora of theories and a burgeoning volume of research. To date, the answer to this question has been predicated on the assumption that fairness perceptions are subjective (i.e., "in the eye of the beholder"). This assumption is shared with motivated cognition approaches, which highlight the subjective nature of perceptions and the importance of viewing individuals arriving at those perceptions as active and motivated processors of information. Further, the motivated cognition literature has other key insights that have been less explicitly paralleled in the fairness literature, including how different goals (e.g., accuracy, directional) can influence how individuals process information and arrive at their perceptions. In this integrative conceptual review, we demonstrate how interpreting extant theory and research related to the formation of fairness perceptions through the lens of motivated cognition can deepen our understanding of fairness, including how individuals' goals and motivations can influence their subjective perceptions of fairness. We show how this approach can provide integration as well as generate new insights into fairness processes. We conclude by highlighting the implications that applying a motivated cognition perspective can have for the fairness literature and by providing a research agenda to guide the literature moving forward. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

No abstract

International audienceOrganizational justice is an important determinant of workplace attitudes, decisions, and behaviors. However, understanding workplace fairness requires not only examining what happens but also when it happens, in terms of justice events, perceptions, and reactions. We organize and discuss findings from 194 justice articles with temporal aspects, selected from over a thousand empirical justice articles. By examining temporal aspects, our findings enrich and sometimes challenge the answers to three key questions in the organizational justice literature relating to (i) when individuals pay attention to fairness, including specific facets, (ii) how fairness judgments form and evolve, and (iii) how reactions to perceived (in)justice unfold. Our review identifies promising avenues for empirical work and emphasizes the importance of developing temporal theories of justic

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Abstract.The paper identifies six phases in the creation of new joint staff-management consultative arrangements such as a works council, or 'staff forum'. Trust and justice theories are then used to analyse the processes involved in initiating, designing, setting up, and maintaining such a forum. The resulting framework considers both institutional and interpersonal aspects, and is intended to present researchers with a structure and an agenda for investigating the nature and consequences of the processes involved. The framework also provides initial guidelines to practitioners involved with establishing new consultative arrangements. TRUST AND JUSTICE IN THE FORMATION OF JOINT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES.This paper presents a theoretical framework for understanding the processes involved in designing, setting up, and maintaining new joint staff-management consultative arrangements such as a works council, or 'staff forum' (hereafter, for convenience, a 'JCC'). While we are only concerned with new JCCs, many of the arguments made are also likely to be valid for the adaptation of pre-existing arrangements.The literature on these processes is surprisingly thin. While the meaning and content of existing this work tends, understandably, to be descriptive and prescriptive rather than explanatory.1 Broad split his longitudinal study into three phases: early, intermediate and a 'later' stage. He found that the managerially-imposed Council, which suffered from little administrative or facilitative support structures, proved an anonymous and hence ineffective forum for airing employees' opinions, or for getting managers' message back to the shopfloor (which had been the managers' principal aim). Within 12-18 months workers began to complain about the Council's limited instrumentality and of their initially high expectations being dashed (ibid: 31-35). Broad believed that "employee dissatisfaction with consultation could be explained by the performance of representatives and by the perception that the remit of the Council was too narrow" (ibid: 35). The sense of frustration swelled to the point where the employees forced union recognition on the company, and the EEPTU union quickly realised that the Council would only "deliver tangible results" if pressures were concurrently applied through the new collective bargaining processes (Broad, 1994: 33). Broad concludes: "Paradoxically, it is the perceived failure of the unitarism of joint consultation which has given additional credence to active shopfl...

No abstract