Sex-based promotion decisions and interactional fairness: Investigating the influence of managerial accounts.

Abstract

The purpose of Experiment 1 was to examine the relative effect of 2 types of managerial accounts-a causal account, in which the decision maker minimizes personal responsibility, and an ideological account, in which the decision maker assumes responsibility and provides a justification-on White male observers' perceptions of interactional fairness following a sex-based promotion decision. Results showed that, compared with either the causal account or a control condition, men perceived significantly more interactional fairness in the ideological account condition. In Experiment 2, the justification and responsibility dimensions that were intentionally confounded in the ideological account in Experiment 1 were separated. Results showed that providing an adequate justification was both necessary and sufficient to influence perceptions of interactional fairness.Managers are often concerned with their image as a fair leader among employees and other organizational constituents (Greenberg, 1990a). However, being perceived as a fair leader is becoming particularly challenging in the workplace in light of dwindling resources. For example, because of economic pressures, managers must more often make resource allocation decisions that have undesirable consequences for employees (e.g., layoffs and budget cutbacks). In the eyes of some individuals, being perceived as fair may also be increasingly difficult because of government-legislated affirmative action (AA) programs designed to create equal employment opportunities for members of designated groups.The purpose of the present set of studies was to examine the influence of managerial accounts on White men's perceptions of interactional fairness in the context of an AA

Fairness, Feelings, and Ethical Decision- Making: Consequences of Violating Community Standards of Fairness

“…Conlon and Ross (1997) found that disputants evaluate outcomes imposed by a third party intervention as more fair when they receive a justification rather than an apology or an excuse (see also Conlon and Murray, 1996). Bobocel and Farrell (1996) found that a justification that was perceived as adequate in a promotion decision increased perceptions of interactional justice (that is, whether individuals thought they were treated with dignity and respect). They also found that an ideological justification functioned better than a causal account.…”

“…The effect of justifications as a specific type of explanation, and their effect on perceived fairness, has received limited research attention (Bobocel and Farrell, 1996). Conlon and Ross (1997) found that disputants evaluate outcomes imposed by a third party intervention as more fair when they receive a justification rather than an apology or an excuse (see also Conlon and Murray, 1996).…”

Employees, Supervisors, and Workplace Mediation

“…The four factors of justice (distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal) have been used in numerous studies to examine perceptions of fairness in a variety of organizational decision-making processes, such as pay satisfaction (e.g., Jones, Scarpello, & Bergmann, 1999), perceptions of pay inequity (e.g., Greenberg, 1990aGreenberg, , 1993c, pay raises (e.g., Folger & Konovsky, 1989), performance appraisals (e.g., Greenberg, 1991;Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995), promotion decisions (e.g., Bobocel & Farrell, 1996), disciplinary decisions (e.g., Bennett, 1998), recruitment decisions (e.g., Bies & Shapiro, 1988), and layoffs (e.g., Brockner & Greenberg, 1990) among several others (for more comprehensive reviews of organizational justice studies, see Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;Colquitt, 2001;Colquitt et al, 2001;Konovsky, 2000).…”

Toward a Theoretical Framework of Intercultural Account‐giving and Account Evaluation

“…Due to gender-related power differences in soci ety, women are more likely than men to express concern for others' face (Brown & Levinson, 1987), to value interpersonal abilities (Bern, 1974;Forsyth, Schlenker, Leary, & McCown, 1985), and to be sensitive to the needs of others (DuBrin, 1991;Gilligan, 1977). Gender differences in concern for others' face needs result in women preferring mitigating accounts and men using aggravating accounts, a relationship that has been supported in the empirical research (Bobocel & Farrell, 1996;Cupach, Metts, & Hazelton, 1986;Gonzales et al, 1990;Tata, 1998).…”