The field of organizational justice continues to be marked by several important research questions, including the size of relationships among justice dimensions, the relative importance of different justice criteria, and the unique effects of justice dimensions on key outcomes. To address such questions, the authors conducted a meta-analytic review of 183 justice studies. The results suggest that although different justice dimensions are moderately to highly related, they contribute incremental variance explained in fairness perceptions. The results also illustrate the overall and unique relationships among distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice and several organizational outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, evaluation of authority, organizational citizenship behavior, withdrawal, performance). These findings are reviewed in terms of their implications for future research on organizational justice.

Although a flurry of meta-analyses summarized the justice literature at the turn of the millennium, interest in the topic has surged in the decade since. In particular, the past decade has witnessed the rise of social exchange theory as the dominant lens for examining reactions to justice, and the emergence of affect as a complementary lens for understanding such reactions. The purpose of this meta-analytic review was to test direct, mediating, and moderating hypotheses that were inspired by those 2 perspectives, to gauge their adequacy as theoretical guides for justice research. Drawing on a review of 493 independent samples, our findings revealed a number of insights that were not included in prior meta-analyses. With respect to social exchange theory, our results revealed that the significant relationships between justice and both task performance and citizenship behavior were mediated by indicators of social exchange quality (trust, organizational commitment, perceived organizational support, and leader-member exchange), though such mediation was not apparent for counterproductive behavior. The strength of those relationships did not vary according to whether the focus of the justice matched the target of the performance behavior, contrary to popular assumptions in the literature, or according to whether justice was referenced to a specific event or a more general entity. With respect to affect, our results showed that justice-performance relationships were mediated by positive and negative affect, with the relevant affect dimension varying across justice and performance variables. Our discussion of these findings focuses on the merit in integrating the social exchange and affect lenses in future research.

Goals are central to current treatments of work motivation, and goal commitment is a critical construct in understanding the relationship between goals and task performance. Despite this importance, there is confusion about the role of goal commitment and only recently has this key construct received the empirical attention it warrants. This meta-analysis, based on 83 independent samples, updates the goal commitment literature by summarizing the accumulated evidence on the antecedents and consequences of goal commitment. Using this aggregate empirical evidence, the role of goal commitment in the goal-setting process is clarified and key areas for future research are identified.

The 3 studies presented here introduce a new measure of the individual-difference form of collectivism. Psychological collectivism is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct with the following 5 facets: preference for in-groups, reliance on in-groups, concern for in-groups, acceptance of in-group norms, and prioritization of in-group goals. Study 1 developed and tested the new measure in a sample of consultants. Study 2 cross-validated the measure using an alumni sample of a Southeastern university, assessing its convergent validity with other collectivism measures. Study 3 linked scores on the measure to 4 dimensions of group member performance (task performance, citizenship behavior, counterproductive behavior, and withdrawal behavior) in a computer software firm and assessed discriminant validity using the Big Five. The results of the studies support the construct validity of the measure and illustrate the potential value of collectivism as a predictor of group member performance.

Pay secrecy is a contentious issue in many organizations and a controversial one in our society. However, there has been little scholarly research on this topic. We hope to address this void by exposing the complexity of pay secrecy as a construct. What are its costs and benefits? What factors affect the link between pay secrecy and the extent to which it is a cost or benefit? This article reveals the complexity of pay secrecy and, we hope, generates ideas for much new research in the broad management field. Pay secrecy in organizations is a contentious issue and has been for a long time. Take, for example, the following memoranda that were exchanged in October of 1919: POLICY MEMORANDUM (October 14, 1919) Forbidding Discussion among Employees of Salary Received It has been the policy of the organization to base salaries on the value of services rendered. We have, therefore, a long established rule that the salary question is a confidential matter between the organization and the individual. It is obviously important that employees live up to this rule in order to avoid invidious comparison and dissatisfaction. Recently several cases have come to the notice of management where employees have discussed the salary question among themselves. This memorandum should serve as a warning that anyone who breaks this rule in the future will be instantly discharged.