Inequality: A Matter of Justice?

Hegtvedt, Karen A.; Scott, Deena A. Isom

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9002-4_4

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 119 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By ensuring fair treatment of their employees, organizations can begin to fill some (but not all) of the void left by societies that fail to provide reliable structures, putting their citizens at risk of exploitation. Moreover, organizations are not just influenced by, but also influence, the SECs in the countries they operate in (Davis & Cobb, 2010; Hegtvedt & Isom, 2014). By perpetuating unfavorable social, legal, and economic institutions in countries where SECs are poor, organizations reinforce the negative effects of these conditions on their relationships with their employees.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this article, we propose that poor socioeconomic conditions (SECs) in a given country constitute salient sources of uncertainty for employees, which affects the way they react to the characteristics of their more immediate environment, including organizational justice (Hegtvedt & Isom, 2014; Schneider, 2012). We draw on uncertainty management theory (UMT; van den Bos, 2001b; van den Bos & Lind, 2002) to argue that SECs influence employee behaviors in response to the experience of fairness in their workplace.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variations in Employee Performance in Response to Organizational Justice: The Sensitizing Effect of Socioeconomic Conditions

Diehl¹,

Richter

Sarnecki³

2016

Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to uncertainty management theory (UMT), organizational justice helps individuals to cope with uncertainty. Employees will thus respond stronger to organizational justice when uncertainty is high. We contribute to UMT by highlighting poor socioeconomic conditions, specifically, weak rule of law, low human development, and high income inequality, as salient sources of uncertainty. We argue that when these conditions are unfavorable, the effects of organizational justice on employee reactions will be stronger than when they are more favorable. We test our arguments using a meta-analysis of 279 studies involving 315 samples from 31 countries. Our findings suggest that poor socioeconomic conditions raise the strength of the relationship between organizational justice on the one hand and task performance and organizational citizenship behavior on the other but not the relationship between organizational justice and counterproductive work behaviors. Our study responds to recent calls to place greater emphasis on contextual factors and to close the macro–micro gap in the literature on organizational justice

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in Employee Performance in Response to Organizational Justice: The Sensitizing Effect of Socioeconomic Conditions

Diehl¹,

Richter

Sarnecki³

2016

Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our argument is informed by several streams of research. First, we draw on the justice literature, which finds that people frequently base their judgments of pay justice on the norm of equity (Hegtvedt and Isom 2014). Other distribution principles exist, but we focus on equity because of its pervasiveness in the United States (Reynolds and Xian 2014) and abroad (Kunovich and Slomczynski 2007).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Why do people tolerate high levels of inequality, particularly given that high inequality disadvantages more people than it advantages (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009)? A common explanation is that people tolerate inequality because they believe it is just, fair, or legitimate (Benabou and Tirole 2006; Hegtvedt and Isom 2014; Jost and Hunyady 2002). Indeed, despite the rise in American economic inequality, we have not seen a commensurate rise in concerns about economic fairness among the public (Ashok, Kuziemko, and Washington 2015; Osberg and Smeeding 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Higher Inequality Increases the Gap in the Perceived Merit of the Rich and Poor

Heiserman

Simpson

2017

Soc Psychol Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rewards people receive are often taken as indirect evidence of their merit. We outline an argument that addresses how the magnitude of macrolevel income inequalities affects perceptions of the distribution of merit in a society. We propose that higher levels of economic inequality will lead to perceptions of greater differences in merit such that societies with higher inequality will be characterized by a larger ''merit gap,'' namely, larger differences in the perceived merit of the rich and poor. We test these arguments using an online experiment that manipulated the level of inequality (high vs. low) in an anonymized society. Participants perceived a larger merit gap in high versus low inequality societies. Our arguments and findings have implications for attitudes about inequality and redistributive policies.

show abstract

“…This suggests that outcomes of risk-taking behavior will influence attributions made by observers, with successful risk-takers being perceived as more competent (given that they are more likely to receive material rewards), and failed risk-takers as less competent (given that they are less likely to receive material rewards), than risk-avoiders. Since perceived competence guides the distribution of workplace and reward outcomes generally [10], these attributions should further magnify the benefits of successful risk-taking and amplify the costs of unsuccessful risk-taking. Thus, this "negativity bias perspective," strongly suggests that, relative to risk-avoiders, risk-takers' reputations are likely to face more downside from failed risk-taking than upside from successful risk-taking.However, failed workplace risk-taking may have fewer negative effects on attributions than the negativity bias perspective would predict.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bold or reckless? The impact of workplace risk-taking on attributions and expected outcomes

Fisk

Overton

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk-takers are rhetorically extolled in America, but does this veneration ignore the downsides of failure? We test competing perspectives on how workplace risk-takers are perceived by examining cultural attitudes about individuals who successfully take, unsuccessful take, and avoid risks at work. The results of two experiments show that, in comparison to risk-avoidance, expected workplace outcomes are enhanced by successful risktaking and that failure does not appear to significantly harm expected workplace outcomes for risk-takers. While one experiment finds that failed risk-takers are seen as more likely to be downsized (because they are viewed as more foolish), we also find failed risk-takers are perceived as more likely to be hired and promoted. Mediation analyses reveal this is primarily because risk-taking-regardless of outcome-considerably increases perceptions of agency and decreases perceptions of indecisiveness, and these attributions predict positive workplace outcomes. We also find the results to be remarkably similar across varying participant characteristics (namely, gender, race, education level, work experience, income, and age), which suggests that there is a broad cultural consensus in the U.S. about the value of risk-taking. In sum, we find evidence that observers generally make more positive attributions about risk-takers than about risk-avoiders, even when risk-takers fail.PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.risk-taking should, in and of themselves, influence judgements about risk-takers, as experimental research has found that when people become arbitrarily associated with rewards or success, people judge them more favorably than those associated with fewer rewards or failure [8,9]. This suggests that outcomes of risk-taking behavior will influence attributions made by observers, with successful risk-takers being perceived as more competent (given that they are more likely to receive material rewards), and failed risk-takers as less competent (given that they are less likely to receive material rewards), than risk-avoiders. Since perceived competence guides the distribution of workplace and reward outcomes generally [10], these attributions should further magnify the benefits of successful risk-taking and amplify the costs of unsuccessful risk-taking. Thus, this "negativity bias perspective," strongly suggests that, relative to risk-avoiders, risk-takers' reputations are likely to face more downside from failed risk-taking than upside from successful risk-taking.However, failed workplace risk-taking may have fewer negative effects on attributions than the negativity bias perspective would predict. Through its intimate connection with entrepreneurialism [11], risk-taking signals a plucky agency and confidence [3]. Many ethnographic accounts of workplaces also testify to the social value attached to risk-taking, from the managerial world [4] to bond sales [12] to the tech sector [3]. Even when risk-takers did not succeed, Neff (2012) explained that the mere act of taking risks became seen by certai...

show abstract

Inequality: A Matter of Justice?

Cited by 20 publications

References 119 publications

Variations in Employee Performance in Response to Organizational Justice: The Sensitizing Effect of Socioeconomic Conditions

Variations in Employee Performance in Response to Organizational Justice: The Sensitizing Effect of Socioeconomic Conditions

Higher Inequality Increases the Gap in the Perceived Merit of the Rich and Poor

Bold or reckless? The impact of workplace risk-taking on attributions and expected outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About