“Justice” and “fairness” are not the same thing

Goldman, Barry M.; Cropanzano, Russell

doi:10.1002/job.1956

Cited by 89 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, the multifoci perspective of justice suggests that employees seek to identify the party accountable for treating them in an unfair 1 Although we set up our hypotheses and interpret our results in terms of the positive relationship between unfairness and CWB, throughout this paper, we use the terms justice and injustice, as well as fairness and unfairness, interchangeably. Whereas this is consistent with prior research within the organizational justice literature, more recent research has begun to discuss the phenomenological differences between justice and injustice (see Goldman & Cropanzano, 2015 for a review). manner (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002).…”

supporting

confidence: 83%

Multifoci effects of injustice on counterproductive work behaviors and the moderating roles of symbolization and victim sensitivity

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Past research suggests that employees, in response to workplace experiences, selectively engage in targeted counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). Taking a retributive justice and target similarity perspective, we predict that employee perceptions of unfairness from the organization uniquely predict CWB specifically targeted at the organization whereas employee perceptions of supervisory unfairness uniquely predict CWB specifically targeted at the supervisor. We further hypothesized that moral identity‐symbolization would strengthen these target‐similar relationships. Finally, drawing from the sensitivity to mean intentions model, we hypothesized that victim sensitivity would not only strengthen these target‐similar relationships but also lead to cross‐foci effects of multifoci fairness perceptions on targets of CWB. Results from 3 field studies of full‐time employees provided support for most of our hypothesized relationships.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 83%

Multifoci effects of injustice on counterproductive work behaviors and the moderating roles of symbolization and victim sensitivity

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It seems that the ethical leadership literature may benefit from more explicitly differentiating between these two aspects, as has only recently been done in the justice literature (c.f. Goldman and Cropanzano 2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both organizational justice and behavioral ethics are social scientific disciplines (Fortin 2008). As such, they focus on describing and predicting the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of people (Fortin and Fellenz 2008;Goldman and Cropanzano 2015). Yet both fields are also closely related to neighboring normative-philosophical fields, specifically the prescriptive fields of normative justice and normative ethics (Cugueró-Escofet and Rosanas 2013).…”

Section: Social Scientific Versus Normative Approaches To Behavioral mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…and perceptions of fairness has long been obscured by the interchangeable terminology for justice rules on the one hand and fairness perceptions on the other hand. In response to this problem, Goldman and Cropanzano (2015) argue that ''Justice should be defined as adherence to rules of conduct, whereas fairness should be defined as individuals' moral evaluations of this conduct'' (p. 1). Thus, justice refers to conduct prescribed by a normative framework, whereas fairness is a perception of the moral worthiness of the rules and compliance with them.…”

Section: Normative Considerations Within Organizational Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond the Particular and Universal: Dependence, Independence, and Interdependence of Context, Justice, and Ethics

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reflects on context effects in the study of behavioral ethics and organizational justice. After a general overview, we review three key challenges confronting research in these two domains. First, we consider social scientific versus normative approaches to inquiry. The former aims for a scientific description, while the latter aims to provide prescriptive advice for moral conduct. We argue that the social scientific view can be enriched by considering normative paradigms. The next challenge we consider, involves the duality of morally upright versus morally inappropriate behavior. We observe that there is a long tradition of categorizing behavior dichotomously (e.g., good vs. bad) rather than continuously. We conclude by observing that more research is needed to compare the dichotomous versus continuous perspectives. Third, we examine the role of ''cold'' cognitions and ''hot'' affect in making judgments of ethicality. Historically speaking, research has empathized cognition, though recent work has begun to add greater balance to affective reactions. We argue that both cognition and affect are important, but more research is needed to determine how they work together. After considering these three challenges, we then turn to our special issue, providing short reviews of each contribution and how they help in better addressing the three challenges we have identified.

show abstract

“…Organizational fairness and justice perceptions have been extensively studied and conceptualized by organizational researchers (Colquitt et al, 2013;Crawshaw, Cropanzano, Bell, & Nadisic, 2013;Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007;Fortin, Cojuharenco, Patient, & German, 2016;Rupp, Shapiro, Folger, Skarlicki, & Shao, 2017;Shahzad & Muller, 2016). Though fairness and justice have often been used synonymously, there can be some philosophical differences between them (Goldman & Cropanzano, 2015). However, as a psychological phenomenon, justice and fairness perceptions essentially represent the same matter, i.e., an individual's psychological reaction to how they are treated, based on their moral assessment of whether they receive what they deserve.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An inquiry into pseudo‐legitimations: A framework to investigate the clash of managerial legitimations and employees' unfairness claims

Kurdoglu

2018

Business Ethics: A Eur Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the argumentation theory of new rhetoric, this paper offers an analytical framework to facilitate empirical investigations on how managers in organizations handle unfairness claims. The proposed framework advocates a rhetorical approach that seeks to understand whether managers absolve themselves of unfairness accusations by pseudo‐legitimations. Pseudo‐legitimation is defined as an attempt to legitimate an action without any genuine reasoning. While the precision of formal deductive reasoning tends not to apply to moral disputes, rhetoric enables rational argumentation and the use of practical reasoning to achieve resolution. Therefore, if managerial judgments are genuine products of reasoning, managers' use of rhetoric to legitimate their actions should be respected in acknowledging value plurality within their boundaries of authority. By contrast, managerial legitimations that are based on irrational grounds should be disrespected, as they can lead to arbitrariness and abuse of power. Institutional dynamics may either permit or inhibit such uses of irrationality. Thus, the proposed framework should be considered alongside the perspective of rhetorical institutionalism.

show abstract

“Justice” and “fairness” are not the same thing

Cited by 89 publications

References 13 publications

Multifoci effects of injustice on counterproductive work behaviors and the moderating roles of symbolization and victim sensitivity

Multifoci effects of injustice on counterproductive work behaviors and the moderating roles of symbolization and victim sensitivity

Beyond the Particular and Universal: Dependence, Independence, and Interdependence of Context, Justice, and Ethics

An inquiry into pseudo‐legitimations: A framework to investigate the clash of managerial legitimations and employees' unfairness claims

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About