No abstract

Management control systems (MCS) are designed to achieve the greatest possible goal congruence, where people pursue personal goals that conduce to the organizational goal. Use and design of MCS are crucial aspects for achieving goal congruence, but they are thought to be contingent to specific external situations. We attempt to analyse that justice in the design and fairness in the use of MCS are required to achieve specific levels of goal congruence independently of the situation.We derive that there are two stable types of goal congruence, labeled maximum goal congruence (where the MCS design is just and the user is just) and minimum goal congruence (where the MCS design is unjust and the user is unjust); and two unstable types of goal congruence, in which goal congruence is occasional (unjust MCS design used justly) or perverse (just MCS design used unjustly).

No abstract

Knowledge sharing (KS) behavior is one of the main drivers to generate social sustainability. It predicts high organizational performance and innovation capabilities, and creates enjoyment and happiness in helping others. Even if incentives to enhance KS behaviors exist, employees would still be reluctant to share knowledge. For this reason, we test a comprehensive model of sustainable human resource management with the inclusion of KS to explain how to enhance collaborative practices in terms of voluntary knowledge sharing. In a comprehensive model, we incorporate organizational justice, employee perceived organizational support, job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment, and how they relate in order to generate knowledge sharing behavior. Using a sample of 1350 employees working for multinational firms operating in Spain, the present research obtains two main results. First, organizational justice, employee perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment are positively related with KS. Second, employee perceived organizational support, job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment play a mediating role between organizational justice and KS, which reinforces the positive relationship between both constructs. Consequently, employees would be more willing to cooperate and share in fair organizational contexts, especially when they are satisfied and affectively committed, and when their contributions are valued and recognized. Finally, we discuss human resource management’s (HRM) practical interventions and recommendations for future research on sustainable organizations.

No abstract

The ultimate goal of organizational justice research is to help create fairer workplaces. This goal may have been slowed by an inattention to the criteria that workers themselves use to ascertain what they believe is fair. Referred to as ‘justice rules’, these were originally determined by theoretical considerations and organized in four dimensions (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice). There have been few attempts to investigate how far these classical norms represent fairness experiences and concerns in modern workplaces, especially in the context of working with peers. In a person-centric study, we investigate which rules people use when judging the fairness of interactions with supervisors and peers. This allows us to identify 14 new justice rules that are not taken into account by traditional measures. When subjected to factor analysis in follow-up studies, the enlarged set of rules suggests a more parsimonious structure for organizational justice, with only three dimensions apiece for supervisor and peer justice. We term these factors relationship, task, and distributive justice. Furthermore, we find that the resulting model of justice rules is a good predictor of attitudes in relation to supervisors and peers and can provide additional insights into how to understand and manage justice.

No abstract

We analyze the status of virtues in management by going in some depth into the two main virtues, justice and practical wisdom. We next study how ethics requires that all virtues should be present under the ideal concept of a ‘unity of virtues’ for a completely wise person and discuss the practical limitations of this concept. Then, we draw a framework for decision making depending on whether the decision maker possesses justice and practical wisdom or lacks one of them and then discuss which one is better to have. We conclude that justice is more important, as it is about setting objectives and prioritizing, whereas practical wisdom is about attaining these objectives, once listed, in a rationally wise and contextual way. Hence, we conclude that objectives (justice) must come first, because this makes it more likely that, in the end, practical wisdom is developed, and thus we end up having the two virtues.