Equity justice and perceptions of fairness
1 / 29

Equity, Justice, and Perceptions of Fairness - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Equity, Justice, and Perceptions of Fairness. Presented by Greg Jones & Sonya Scott. Equity and Fairness. The Effects of Trust in Authority and Procedural Fairness on Corporation. by De Cremer & Tyler. Introduction.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Equity, Justice, and Perceptions of Fairness' - mircea

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Equity justice and perceptions of fairness

Equity, Justice, and Perceptions of Fairness

Presented by

Greg Jones & Sonya Scott

The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on corporation

Equity and Fairness

The Effects of Trust in Authority and Procedural Fairness on Corporation


De Cremer & Tyler


Most persons enjoy working with others in pursuing collective goals rather than acting alone in achieving their own personal ambitions.

This is referred to as cooperation.

But, there must be trust and fairness.

Trust promotes productivity, effectiveness,cooperative working relationships, and helps smooth over social dilemmas and negotiations.

(De Cremer & Tyler, 2005; De Cremer & Tyler, 2007)

Relationship between trust and procedural justice
Relationship between Trust and Procedural Justice

  • Common belief in organizational theory is that trust comes before fairness and judgment.

    Fairness is a strong influence on how people react to information when trustworthiness of authority is lacking.

  • When someone is considered trustworthy then they are also considered fair and the degree of their trustworthiness reflects on how willing people are to cooperate.

    (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Tyler & Degoey, 1996; Tyler & Lind, 1992; Van den Bos, 2001).

Cooperation as a function of trust in authority procedural fairness
Cooperation as a Function of Trust in Authority × Procedural Fairness

If authority acts fairly toward its employees, such as listening to their opinions, then employees are more willing to invest their time and energy.

However, fairness must be meaningful, not a management strategy to simply placate.

This may work in the beginning, but people have a way of recognizing dromedary feces (BS).

The study
The Study Procedural Fairness

Study 1


70 undergraduates


  • Work with a team

  • Be either high-trusting or low-trusting

  • Work with authority that will or will not ask for their opinion before making decisions


    Participants with high-trust and allowed to give a voice in the decision-making process felt more a part of the group.

The study1
The Study Procedural Fairness

Study 2


  • 80 undergraduate students


  • Groups of four to obtain 50 points (U.S. 13 ¢)

  • Divide up the points based on participation or to have an outsider make the determination.


  • Some trustworthy, some not.

  • Voice, no-voice conditions


    Leader reported to be trustworthy and allowed students to have a voice helped contribute more toward the completion of the tasks.

The study2
The Study Procedural Fairness

Study 3


  • Telephone survey of 1656 residents into urban areas.


  • Dealt with recent personal experiences with the legal authorities, such as police or courts.


  • Showed that when trust and the feeling of fairness are high, cooperation is high; something the Fullerton Police Department might consider

    (a.k.a. Kelly Thomas beating).

The study3
The Study Procedural Fairness

Study 4


  • The participants were made up of 409 employees were interviewed over the phone about decisions made in their workplace.


    Showed that when trust is high, so was cooperation.

Discussion Procedural Fairness

  • Four studies provided evidence to support De Cremer and Taylor's hypothesis that when trust in authority is high, so is the sense of fairness, which has a positive effect on cooperation.

  • People willing to reciprocate kind behavior on the part of administration or management by cooperation and support.

  • Especially true when the group or organization's goals are meaningful.

  • Efforts toward trustworthiness and fairness must be sincere, meaningful. People must feel there is legitimate reason to give upself-interests. or company's interests same as theirs.

Scenarios Procedural Fairness

A new program is being implemented after the participatory action research (PHR), where students are allowed to have a saying in their learning by giving feedback to their teachers on their instruction.

Scenario 1

One group of teaching staff is in support of this new policy. How can administration assist these teachers in adopting this program in their classrooms?

Scenario 2

Another group of teachers have been at the school for over five years and are opposed to this policy. They feel it is irrelevant and disruptive. In truth, they do not want change and feel that these new measures may expose their lack of commitment and dedication. How can administration get these teachers on board, and if they do not, what measures can be taken to unify staff support.

Jackass syndrome
Jackass Syndrome Procedural Fairness

(carrot and stick approach)

There are two approaches to implementing policy: one by being fair and giving people the opportunity to express their views, which in turn gives them legitimate reasons for their support - this is the carrot approach. The other approach is to stick where firmer measures are used.

Discretion must be exercised when using the stick; using a stick on a jackass can have certain consequences.


Why not to use the stick
Why not to use the stick Procedural Fairness

Importance Procedural Fairness

Why is this so important?

What value is acting truthfully and fairly with others have?

About $50 billion worth.

Organizational justice

Organizational Justice Procedural Fairness

Predicting Workplace Deviance from the Interaction between Organizational Justice and Personality.

Think about it
Think about it Procedural Fairness

Consider a time when you were treated unfairly at work.

  • What happened?

  • How did you feel?

  • What was your reaction?

  • In what ways did your behavior change?

Workplace deviance
Workplace Deviance Procedural Fairness

  • Deviant workplace behavior is a prevailing and costly phenomenon occurring in all types of organizational settings.

  • Refers to a range of voluntary behaviors by employees that violate organizational norms, policies or rules.

  • Includes behaviors that threaten the well-being of the organization and it’s members.

    75% of employees engage in

    theft, sabotage, unexcused absenteeism, or vandalism.


Studying workplace deviance
Studying Procedural Fairness Workplace Deviance

Most studies on organizational justice have focused on

  • Social Theories

    • Distributive Justice Theory

    • Equity Theory

    • Relative Deprivation Theory

  • Deviance towards organization

  • Identifying antecedents of behaviors

  • Predictors

    • self-esteem

    • perceived unfairness

  • Distributive, procedural and interactional justice

  • Study 1
    Study 1 Procedural Fairness

    Predicting Workplace Deviance from the Interaction between Organizational Justice and Personality.


    To empirically examine how both person and situation

    based variables interact to explain workplace deviance.


    151 participants (81 female and 70 male) completed a

    survey on their perceptions of justice at work, and

    involvement in deviant work behaviors.


    Workplace deviance is more common when employees are

    male, older, impulsive, low in socialization or do not perceive that their organization is fair.

    (Henle, 2005).

    Study Procedural Fairness 2

    Employee personality, justice perceptions, and the prediction of workplace deviance


    This study explored the predictiveness of both personality and organizational

    justice and identify whether these variable sets is significant in explaining

    workplace deviance.


    464 employees of a major retailer completed a questionnaires which measured

    personality, perceptions of organizational justice and workplace deviance.


    • Personality appears to explain greater variance in workplace deviance than

      do employee justice perceptions

    • Justice perceptions do not appear to contribute meaningfully to the

      prediction of workplace deviance beyond personality.

      (O’Neil, Lewis, & Carswell, 2011).

    Study 3
    Study 3 Procedural Fairness

    Predicting Retaliation in the Workplace: The Theory of Planned Behavior and Organizational Justice


    To investigate how employees perceptions of unfair

    treatment predict their decisions to retaliate against their

    supervisors and organizations using the theory of planned

    behavior (TPB).


    96 employed individuals taking college courses completed

    a survey to assess the participants perception of


    • The TPB predictors and retaliation against supervisors would be mediated by behavioral intent.

      • Age and gender relate to workplace deviance.

        (Jones, 2003)

    Study 4
    Study Procedural Fairness 4

    When Does Self Esteem Relate to Deviant Behavior?

    The Role of Contingencies of Self Worth


    To examine the ways in which self esteem level

    and type play a role in the prediction of deviant

    behavior and when self esteem relates to deviance


    123 participants completed three online surveys

    over a period of 6 months on deviance, self esteem

    and deviant behaviors.

    (Ferris, Brown, Lian, & Keeping, 2009)

    Study 41
    Study Procedural Fairness 4


    • Self-consistency and behavioral plasticity theory predictions hold only for individuals with low levels of work place contingent self esteem.

    • When self esteem is contingent upon demonstrating workplace competence, engaging in deviance represents an irrational act that threatens one’s self-esteem.

      (Ferris, Brown, Lian, & Keeping, 2009)

    Discussion Procedural Fairness

    • Employee perceptions of justice has an impact on organizational outcomes.

    • When employees experience injustice, they will be motivated to resolve this injustice.

    • Types of justice include distributive, procedural and interactional.

    • Individuals with a predisposition for engaging in deviance did not do so when they perceive high interactional justice.

    • Justice perceptions can be altered by actually changing the justice of a situation, or by providing adequate explanations for organizational events.

    Implications for educational leaders
    Implications for Educational Leaders Procedural Fairness

    If teachers perceive organizational culture and organizational justice highly, this will also increase their commitment to their schools, the district and the students they teach (Greenberg, 1990).

    • The Golden Rule

    • Change how fair the situation actually is

      • Improve distributive, procedural and interactional justice

      • Treat all employees with sincerity and respect

      • Establish trust

    • Change how fair the situation is perceived

      • Provide transparency

      • Explain decisions and procedures

      • Promote a culture of collegiality, collaboration, support

      • and trust that is firmly rooted in democratic and

      • social justice values and beliefs.

      • (Mustafa, 2010)

    References Procedural Fairness

    • Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177–198.

    • De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 639-649.

    • De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 151–218). New York: Academic Press.

    • Ferris, D.L., Brown, D. J., Lian, H. & Keeping, L.M. (2009). When dose self esteem relate to deviant behavior? The role of contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, (5) 1345-1353.

    • Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.

    • Henle, C.A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 247-263.

    References Procedural Fairness

    • Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and

      social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656–669.

    • Jones, D.A. ( 2003). Predicting retaliation in the workplace: the theory of planned behavior and organizational justice. In D.H. Nagao (Ed.). Best paper proceedings of the 63rd annual meeting of the Academy of Management (CD), ISSN 1543-8643.

  • Mustafa, Y. (2010). The effects of teachers’ perception of organizational justice and culture on organizational commitment. African Journal of Business Management, 4(5) 695 – 701.

  • O’Neil, T.A., Lewis, R.J., and Carswell, J.J. (2011). Employee personality, justice perceptions and the prediction of workplace deviance. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 595-60C0.

  • References2
    References Procedural Fairness

    • Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Ed.), Trust in organizations (pp. 331–356). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.

    • Van den Bos, K. (2001). Fundamental research by means of laboratory experiments is essential for a better understanding of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 254–259


    Questions Procedural Fairness