History 1997 for literature reviews), but it has been

History of the
researches in organizational justice goes back to 40 years ago (see Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt
et al., 2001; Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997 for literature reviews), but it
has been more considered in recent years. Organizational
justice refers to the feelings of
equity of the allocation of rewards (e.g., pay and
promotions) to individuals respect to their inputs (e.g., training and effort) (Bolton & Ockenfels, 2000; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; Parker & Kohlmeyer, 2005). One of the background theories of organizational
justice is equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965), which refers to comparison
between one’s self and others incomes and outcomes. In addition to equity
theory, fairness heuristic
theory (Lind, 2001; Van den Bos, 2001a), uncertainty management theory (Lind
& Van den Bos, 2002; Van den Bos & Lind, 2002), and fairness theory (Folger
& Cropanzano, 2001) have been introduced in justice literature in these
recent years. Social exchange theory, as a dominant
framework defines social exchange as
“the voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they
are expected to bring and typically do in fact bring from others” (Blau, 1964, p.
91; DeConinck, 2010). Fairness is an important dimension of social exchange theory which
researchers have investigated its relationship with individuals’ attitudes and behaviours
in the organizations (see Cohen-Charash
and Spector, 2001 and Colquitt, et al., 2001 for literature reviews). DeConinck (2010) believes that fair treatment in the organizations
develop trustful relationship between higher status people and lower status
ones and then leads to positive outcomes. According to Folger and Cropanzano
(1998; 2001) and Colquitt, Conlon,
Wesson, Porter, & Ng (2001), unfair condition forms
people’s perceptions of unfairness in the organization and provokes them to
review their commitment to the organization as well as prompts different
negative emotional and behavioural reactions in the workplace.

According to
Cropanzano, massaro & Becker (2017) there are three motives for justice. The
first category of motives regarding to the instrumental model, refers to
preferences of justice because of its long-term control on favor valued
outcomes. The second category, group-value model, emphasizes the relationship
and interaction of coworkers and employees in a social context (Blader and Tyler 2015).
In other words, fair treatments cause that group members get respect within the
group (e.g., Tyler and Blader 2000). The final approach that indicates why individuals care about the
organizational justice, is deontic model arguing that employees follow justice
not simply because of the benefits of justice, but because of the justice criteria
and values. In other words, in this model, people’s motivation for having
justice does not come from pragmatic reasons, but comes from ethical standards
or justice rules (Folger 2001, 2011;
Hannah et al. 2014).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Justice rules are rooted in socialized or internalized standard values
which bring ethical duties for individuals in the particular settings (Lau and
Wong 2009, p. 281). Researchers demonstrate that this model of dealing with
justice issue is context oriented and morally depended (Nicklin et al. 2011;
Cropanzano and Moliner 2013), so they name it “principlism” (e.g., Batson 1999,
p. 303; Blader and Tyler 2001, p. 235).

Justice rules have been categorized into three groups (Cropanzano et al.
2015) include distributive, procedural, and
interactional justice (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005; Folger
& Cropanzano, 1998). Colquitt, Scott, Judge and Shaw (2006) stated that procedural
and interactional justice rules (e.g., bias, ethicality, respectfulness, and honesty) are more “morally charged” than distributive notions
such as met expectations, reward-cost proportionality, and outcome/input ratio

justice is obtained when allocation of a resource is fair and all groups consider
their share of a resource as fair (Adams, 1965; Walster et al., 1978; for an
overview, see Hegtvedt & Cook, 2000). The early works on organizational
justice which had focused more on distributive justice (Adams, 1965), demonstrated that employee’s perception
of inequality was related to dissatisfaction with outcomes (DeConinck and
Stilwell, 2004).

Procedural justice
emphasizes on the procedures used for making decision. Thibaut and Walker
(1975) and Leventhal, (1980) in discussing about procedural justice address to the
norms of procedural fairness in decision-making such as consistency across persons and time,
being unbiased, accuracy, having capacity to correct and representativeness.
Different from distributive justice, procedural justice focuses more on
organizational commitment and satisfaction with procedures in the organizations
(Colquitt et al., 2001;
Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). Leventhal (1980)
stated that allocations of rewards should be fair laterally between individuals
and longitudinally over time (Cropanzano
et al. 2015; Scottet al. 2008; Zapata-phelan, Colquitt, Scott and Livinstone,
2009). In other words, fairness should be in the
equality of opportunities for any employees to get rewards related to their
efforts and this rule should be consistent overtime. Tyler and Lind (1992)
underlined the group value model that proposed humans as the basically social
beings whose values are realized within the groups. According to this model,
fair decision making considers employee’s rights in the groups valuable and
respectful (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989; Tyler et al., 1996; Tyler
& Lind, 1992). Therefore, for assessing how much organization treat fairly
with individuals; employees evaluate authorities’ interactions with themselves
(Tyler, 1989). During this evaluation, they can understand whether authorities
have behaved neutrally and unbiased toward them, because biased interaction
could lead to negative employee attitudes against the organization. In spite of
the differences, these two concepts have similarities. For instances, in the
neutrality (Tyler, 1989) we can see the consistency of the rule applications
across employees, while in the inconsistency (Leventhal, 1980) we can find
discrimination in the allocations of the opportunities.

Interactional justice is third type of justice,
which centers more on the relations, and interpersonal reactions received from another person (e.g., Bies, 2001; Tyler, 1989; Tyler, Rasinski, & Spodick,
1985). The core concepts of this justice focus on the need for trust, respect,
and dignity within interactions with others. The major difference between this facets
of organizational justice with procedural one is that the feeling of
interactional justice is directed toward superiors, but in the procedural
injustice, the perception of inequality is directed toward the organization.

Some researchers
believe that this type could be divided to two subscales, interpersonal justice
referring to sincerity and
respect which people receive from authorities and informational justice relates to keeping individuals informed honestly and adequately through
clarifications (e.g., Colquitt et al. 2001; cf. Colquitt and Rodell, 2015).