The Mirage of Procedural Justice and the Primacy of Interactional Justice in Organizations

Abstract

This paper offers a novel situational approach to study organizational justice in which the proposed unit of analysis is managerial behavior manifested in argumentation rather than employee justice perceptions. The currently dominant theoretical framework in justice research, which is built on justice perceptions, neglects the unique features of organizational order and vulnerability of procedural justice perceptions. As the procedural justice concept belongs chiefly to a spontaneous market order under which the rule of law is made possible, it is inappropriate to transfer this concept to an organization in which the rule of authority is dominant. Therefore, except the limited legal domain in which managerial freedom is restrained by laws, procedural justice in organizations represents a mirage that can give rise to hypocritical managerial actions that can legitimate morally controversial outcomes via eristic tactics. In contrast, interactional justice is of great importance to organizations in that employees and organizations can ensure their rational economic exchanges without deception. However, current formulations of interactional justice often regard interactions as a palliative recipe designed to alleviate reactions to outcomes and not as a constituent of distributive justice. Perelman's argumentation theory can offer a new conceptualization of interactional justice that addresses this gap.

A critical appraisal of the scientific dominant approach to organizational justice

“…In light of the BE literature, the concept of justice denotes a kind of moral correctness or ethical adequacy (Cropanzano et al, 2007). Notwithstanding, the idea of justice is applied to grasp a vast range of human outcomes, processes, and behaviors (Cropanzano & Molina, 2015;Kurdoglu, 2020), BE scholars are concerned with moral judgments contents and criteria for establishing what is right or wrong in organizational settings (Greene, 2013). Regarding fairness in organizations, these academics are far more interested in knowing if individuals address normatively correct judgments about processes, results, or behaviors in a morally appropriate manner (Cugueró-Escofet & Rosanas, 2013;Kurdoglu, 2020).…”

“…Normative notions of justice echo in the discussions regarding the conception of OJ and notably in 1. the formulation and refinement of its concepts; 2. its link with morality; and 3. its contemporary applications in organizations (Cugueró-Escof & Fortin, 2014;Cropazano et al, 2017;Fortin & Fellenz, 2008;Moliner et al, 2017;Van Buren, 2008). In practical terms, this means that social scientists borrow philosophical concepts of justice to create their own understanding of OJ (Cropanzano & 3 The following philosophical approaches are part of OJ studies: John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness (Lindblom, 2011), Aristotle's notion of justice as a virtue (Rhodes, 2016), Robert Nozick's theory of justice (Chan, 2000), Emmanuel Levinas' concept of justice (Rhodes, 2011), Amartya Sen's idea of justice (Shrivastava et al, 2016), Jürgen Habermas's notion of social justice (Underwood-Stephens & Cobb, 1999), and Friedrich Hayek's theories of justice and the rule of law (Kurdoglu, 2020).…”

“…There is an intrinsically Machiavellian trait in the subversive way socialscientific OJ research manipulates perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactive justice to the organization advantage, particularly to achieve -and thereby improve -its economic order ends (Cohen, 2015;Kurdoglu, 2020). The abandonment of the philosophical-normative notions of justice represents a depoliticization of its meaning as an ultimate end all seek.…”

Uma apreciação crítica da abordagem de caráter científico dominante da justiça organizacional

“…Nos estudos de BE, a noção de justiça conota uma espécie de correção moral ou adequação ética (Cropanzano et al, 2007). Não obstante a ideia de justiça ser amplamente aplicada para compreender uma imensa variedade de resultados, processos e comportamentos humanos (Cropanzano & Molina, 2015;Kurdoglu, 2020), os estudiosos de BE estão preocupados com o conteúdo dos juízos morais e os critérios para determinar o que é certo ou errado (Greene, 2013). No que se refere à justiça nas organizações, eles estão interessados em saber se os julgamentos normativamente corretos sobre processos, resultados ou comportamentos são endereçados de maneira moralmente apropriada (Cugueró-Escofet & Rosanas, 2013;Kurdoglu, 2020).…”

“…Nos anos 1980, as abordagens de JO assumiram uma perspectiva rawlsiana, mudando seu foco de análise "para incluir o processo de justiça, bem como seu resultado" (Rhodes, 2016(Rhodes, , p. 2109. Inspirados pela teoria de justiça de John Rawls, "os especialistas em ética (de negócios e outras áreas) passaram a adotar argumentos orientados para a [teoria rawlsiana de] justiça como equidade no 3 É possível identificar as seguintes abordagens filosóficas de justiça nos textos de JO: a teoria de justiça como equidade de John Rawls (Lindblom, 2011), a noção de justiça como virtude de Aristóteles (Rhodes, 2016), a teoria de justiça de Robert Nozick (Chan, 2000), a concepção de justiça de Emmanuel Levinas (Rhodes, 2011), a ideia de justiça de Amartya Sen (Shrivastava et al, 2016), a noção de justiça social de Jürgen Habermas (Underwood-Stephens & Cobb, 1999) e as teorias de justiça e o estado de direito de Friedrich Hayek (Kurdoglu, 2020).…”