The Look in Detail at Justice Subdimensions

This research will this study did not look in detail at justice subdimensions. In a recent article, Scott et al. (2009) argued that the organizational justice dimensions would differ for employees based on their managerial positions. Accordingly, this research will study in detail organizational justice dimensions and examine potential differences between them in order to demonstrate a better understanding of what is justice from the supervisors’ (actor) perspective. While organizational justice from the actor perspective is a fairly new topic, Folger and Skarlicki (2001) conducted a study as they attempted to explain why managers don’t always follow justice rules during layoffs at the workplace, they explained it by offering the Churchill effect which involves distancing by harm-doers. In other words, managers tend to avoid explaining to their fired employees. They also discussed another approach which is trickle-down effects. In this model, an employee’s experience in an organization affects both perceptions of the organization and behavior toward others.

For example, supervisor perceptions of interactional fairness are connected with subordinate perceptions of interactional fairness climate (Ambrose, Schminke, & Mayer, 2013). This suggests that how supervisors perceive their own treatment from superiors’ factors into how subordinates perceive their fairness. Until recently, no research has studied the supervisors (actors) perceptions of organisational justice and compared it to the subordinates perceptions and this represents a major gap in organisational justice research as discussed by (Scott et al., 2009), and they also argued that very little is known about why managers decide to violate justice rules. Moreover; they identified several fields that have established a theory on actors. These fields include aggression, discrimination, sexual harassment, and prejudice. This proposed research will review these areas in order to gain a better understanding of the actor's perspectives and to fully understand what is just and how do supervisors and subordinates perceive justice at the workplace The majority of organizational justice research is focused on the recipient perspective, examining how the recipients of justice decisions react. However, little has been studying the justice perceptions of actors. Actor-based justice research thus represents a new path on a commonly investigated topic. In most organizational justice research, justice is seen as causing some other outcome.

Employees who have different perceptions of justice respond differently. The attitudes and behaviors resulting from justice perceptions are the primary focus. In organizational justice actor research, justice is more commonly seen as a dependent variable. Actors decide to adhere to or violate justice based on personal or situational characteristics (Scott et al, 2009). This research seeks to further investigate the underdeveloped actor's perspectives on justice. Actor Versus Recipient A more recent meta-analysis was conducted by Rupp, Shao, et al. (2014).

Unlike Colquitt et al. (2013), they found evidence for the importance of organizational justice perceptions towards other sources, such that it was related to organization-specific variables, and supervisor-focused justice was related to supervisor-specific variables. A recent meta-analysis was conducted by Colquitt et al. (2013) who examined 493 independent samples. Organisational justice was positively related to task performance and OCB’s. These relationships were mediated by social exchange paradigms: trust, organizational support, organizational commitment, and leader-member exchange but justice was negatively related to CWBs. As noted, organizational justice has been the focus of a considerable amount of research. A few major findings are described here to place the foundation for this research proposal. Early justice studies found a relationship between justice and many organizational outcomes.

A research conducted by Moorman (1991), found that interactional justice (at that time it was classified as a part of procedural justice) significantly related to OCBs. Furthermore; A detailed meta-analysis conducted by Colquitt et al. (2001) based on 183 articles. The four-justice types were related to CWBs, OCBs, performance, and trust. They were also related to job commitment and satisfaction. However; it's important to note that procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and information justice correlated differently with each outcome, and Colquitt recommended that the dimensions should be treated as four distinct ones.

Likewise; in the same year, another meta-analysis was conducted by Cohen et al. (2001) who examined 190 studies they argued that organizational outcomes were related to organizational justice. There found differences between the justice dimensions as they used the old three-dimension categorization consisting of procedural, distributive and interactional justice. Key Findings in Organisational Justice Literature Interactional justice is the interpersonal treatment received from other employees or supervisors (Bies, 2001). It is based on, politeness, justifications, and truthfulness (Bies & Moag, 1986). Interactional justice is typically divided into two factors called interpersonal and informational justice. Informational justice involves giving clear explanations of the procedures used (Greenberg, 2011). Interpersonal justice is treating people with dignity and respect (Greenberg, 2011). Procedural justice is defined as the perceived fairness of the procedures used to determine outcomes (Greenberg, 2011). It is based on several factors, including consistency, bias, voice, accuracy, ethicality, and representativeness, (Leventhal, 1980). Although they are often examined separately, researchers argue that distributive and procedural justice have some overlap, as both deals with allocation (Cropanzano & Ambrose, 2001). Moreover; procedural assessments can be impacted by factors ranging from situational cues to national culture (Brockner, Ackerman, & Fairchild, 2001). Organizational justice has been defined as “employees perceptions of fairness in organizations along with their behavioral and emotional reactions” (Greenberg, 2011, p. 271). The organizational justice concept is typically regarded as having four dimensions: distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal. Distributive justice is the perception of the fairness of the distribution of resources and rewards. It is based on equality, needs, and equity (Greenberg, 2011).

According to equity theory (Adams, 1965) people compare what they put into work (their input) versus what they get (output). If the rewards are imbalanced, employees will react differently (e.g., by working less or increase their performance). These comparisons are subjective. Thus, justice perceptions can be changed psychologically and perceptually (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Organisational justice is one of the most heavily researched topics in industrial-organizational Psychology, Human resources management, and Organisational Behaviour. Over 600 articles were published from 1975 to 1999, and the concept has been even further research in the new millennium, as over 1600 articles were published from 1999 to 2010 (Colquitt et al, 2013). This continued attention illustrates the ongoing importance of organizational justice in the workplace due to its effects on employees and organizations.

However; researches argue that modern approaches to measuring fairness perceptions fail to capture the full domain of organisational justice, as it was narrowly conceptualised and that despite the foundation of “classic” theories, the field has failed to systematically map the justice domain; in other words, no justice research to date has covered the full range of measures (Procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational measures) used by employees in their working environments and researchers didn’t cover the full scope of how employees fully experience justice at the workplace( Rupp et al,2017). Moreover; they also argue that most of the justice research didn’t fully study the supervisor's perceptions as most of the organizational justice research is focused on subordinates perceptions and it is based on observations that preexist the 21st-century workplace.