To Shift or Not to Shift? Determinants and Consequences of Phase Shifting on Justice Judgments

Abstract

Building on fairness heuristic theory and dual-process theories of cognition, we examine individuals' perceptions of phase shifting. We define phase shifting as an individual perception that triggers a shift from type 1 to type 2 cognitive processes resulting in the reevaluation of justice judgments. In a longitudinal study of a merger, we empirically test the influence of phase-shifting perceptions on justice judgments, and we identify antecedents of phase-shifting perceptions. We find employees' perceptions of the change as a phase-shifting event moderates the relationship between overall justice judgments prior to change (time 1), and subsequent assessments of justice six months later (time 2). We study three situational antecedents (i.e., magnitude of change, managerial exemplarity, and coworker support for change) and one individual antecedent (i.e., dispositional resistance to change) of phase-shifting perceptions. The four hypothesized antecedents together predict 74% of employees' perceptions of the merger as a phase-shifting event. Implications for research and practice regarding organizational justice and organizational change are discussed.We are thankful to the APICIL Company and the Gordon J. Barnett Foundation for their support of this research.

Occasions for Sensemaking and Responses to Change: A Quasi-Field Experiment

“…In addition, our study extends and enriches the growing literature exploring the temporal shifts in responses to change (Gover & Duxbury, 2017;Jansen et al, 2016;Soenen et al, 2017). Although our study reveals that people participating in OfS are more likely to shift their response, our analyses show divergent results.…”

“…One of the important but so far underdeveloped research areas addresses the temporal shifts of peoples' responses to change. Empirical studies show that responses shift over time rather than being temporally static (Huy, Corley, & Kraatz, 2014;Isabella, 1990;Jansen, Shipp, & Michael, 2016;Soenen, Melkonian, & Ambrose, 2017).…”

A meta‐analysis of change in applicants' perceptions of fairness

“…In methodological terms, we thus suggest that our focus on organizational fairness should be extended to within‐subject or ideographic designs (Silverstein, 1988). This would allow the effects to be calculated over time (including the velocity, acceleration, and inertia in change) and examined in much greater detail; it would also allow us to study change processes during major events and transitions (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003; Soenen, Melkonian, & Ambrose, 2017). We also suggest that the cognitive and affective processes that shape, or are shaped by, perceptions of fairness should be regarded as dynamic processes that can follow different metrics.…”

The Journey of Justice: Recounting Milestones over the Past Six Decades

“…Recent studies have explored more complex models where they examine the effect of overall justice as an independent antecedent on organizational outcomes in presence of other mediators (Aryee et al, 2015;Barclay & Kiefer, 2014;Whiteside & Barclay, 2013) and moderators (Bobocel, 2013;Soenen, Melkonian, & Ambrose, 2017). Aryee et al (2015) proved that need satisfaction acted as a mediator between overall justice and intrinsic motivation.…”