Feeling the Heat

doi:10.1017/9781108573887.027

26 - Feeling the Heat

The Importance of Affect to Organizational Justice for Receivers, Actors, and Observers

from Part IV - Workplace Affect and Organizational, Social, and Cultural Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2020

Brent A. Scott and

Jocelyn Alisa Dana-Lê

Edited by

Liu-Qin Yang ,

Russell Cropanzano ,

Catherine S. Daus and

Vicente Martínez-Tur

Show author details

Liu-Qin Yang: Affiliation:
Portland State University
Russell Cropanzano: Affiliation:
University of Colorado
Catherine S. Daus: Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Vicente Martínez-Tur: Affiliation:
Universitat de València, Spain

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Broadly, the literature on organizational justice is concerned with a key question that employees often ask themselves when evaluating events that occur at work: “Was that fair?” (Colquitt, 2012, p. 526). Decades of research on organizational justice have revealed that individuals assess fairness when evaluating a) the outcomes they receive, including whether they are equitable (distributive justice: Adams, 1965; Leventhal, 1976), b) the procedures used to determine those outcomes, including whether they are consistent, accurate, unbiased, correctable, and provide voice and input (procedural justice: Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975), c) the information conveyed by authority figures, including whether it is honest and detailed (informational justice: Bies & Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1993), and d) the interpersonal treatment they receive during interactions, including whether it is respectful and polite (interpersonal justice: Bies & Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1993). The answers they receive to these questions (i.e. how fair or unfair an event was) are critical, as greater perceptions of fairness have been consistently linked to key outcomes such as well-being, job attitudes, and various indicators of job performance (for a meta-analysis, see Colquitt, Scott, Rodell, Long, Zapata, Conlon, & Wesson, 2013).

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Workplace Affect , pp. 350 - 362

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108573887.027 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Volume 2, pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar

Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 491–500.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Barclay, L. J., & Scarlicki, D. P. (2009). Healing the wounds of organizational injustice: Examining the benefits of expressive writing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 511–523.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it’s unfair: A quantitative synthesis of affect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 286–295.Google Scholar

Barsky, A., Kaplan, S. A., & Beal, D. J. (2011). Just feelings? The role of affect in the formation of organizational fairness judgements. Journal of Management, 37, 248–279.Google Scholar

Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Volume 9, pp. 289–319). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In Lewicki, R. J., Sheppard, B. H., & Bazerman, M. H. (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Volume 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar

Blanken, I., van de Ven, N., & Zeelenberg, M. A. (2015). A meta-analytic review of moral licensing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 540–558.Google Scholar

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar

Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Diekmann, K. A. (2009). Towards a “fairer” conception of process fairness: Why, when, and how more may not always be better than less. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 183–216.Google Scholar

Colquitt, J. A. (2012). Organizational justice. In Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (Volume 1, pp. 526–547). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In Greenberg, J & Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Colquitt, J. A., Long, D. M., Rodell, J. B., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. (2015). Adding the “In” to justice: A qualitative and quantitative investigation of the differential effects of justice rule adherence and violation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 278–297.Google Scholar

Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2015). Measuring justice and fairness. In Cropanzano, R & Ambrose, M (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in work organizations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199–236.Google Scholar

De Cremer, D., Stinglhamber, F., & Eisenberger, R. (2005). Effects of own versus others’ fair treatment on positive emotions: A field study. Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 741–744.Google Scholar

Degoey, P. (2000). Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 51–102.Google Scholar

Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1998). Person–environment fit theory: Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In Cooper, C. L. (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28–67). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.Google Scholar

Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In Gilliland, S. W., Steiner, D. D., & Scarlicki, D. P. (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (Volume 1, pp. 3–33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In Greenberg, J & Cropanzano, R (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89–118). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291–309.Google Scholar

Frijda, N. H. (2007). The laws of emotion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Geenen, B., Proost, K., van Dijke, M., de Witte, K., & von Grumbkow, J. (2012). The role of affect in the relationship between distributive justice expectations and applicants’ recommendation and litigation intentions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 404–413.Google Scholar

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, megative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605–622.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, R. L., Quade, M. J., Mawritz, M. B., Kim, J., & Crosby, D. (2014). When the customer is unethical: The explanatory role of employee emotional exhaustion onto work–family conflict, relationship conflict with coworkers, and job neglect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1188–1203.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In Cropanzano, R (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J., Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2007). Social comparison processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 22–41.Google Scholar

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar

Horberg, E. J., Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2013). Pride displays communicate self-interest and support for meritocracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 24–37.Google Scholar

Janssen, O., Lam, C. K., & Huang, X. (2009). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The moderating roles of distributive justice and positive affect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 787–809.Google Scholar

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126–138.Google Scholar

Khan, A. K., Quratulain, S., & Bell, C. M. (2014). Episodic envy and counterproductive work behaviors: Is more justice always good? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 128–144.Google Scholar

Klaussner, S. (2014). Engulfed in the abyss: The emergence of abusive supervision as an escalating process of supervisor–subordinate interaction. Human Relations, 67, 311–332.Google Scholar

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive–motivational–relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819–834.Google Scholar

Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In Berkowitz, L & Walster, W (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Volume 9, pp. 91–131). New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In Gergen, K, Greenberg, M, & Willis, R (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar

Long, E. C., & Christian, M. S (2015). Mindfulness buffers retaliatory responses to injustice: A regulatory approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1409–1422.Google Scholar

Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Koopman, J., & Passantino, L. G. (2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 743–770.Google Scholar

Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 881–889.Google Scholar

Paterson, J. M., & Cary, J. (2002). Organizational justice, change anxiety, and acceptance of downsizing: Preliminary tests of an AET-based model. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 83–103.Google Scholar

Razzaq, A., Iqbal, M. Z., Ikramullah, M., & Prooijen, J. W. V. (2016). Occurrence of rating distortions and ratees’ fairness perceptions per raters’ mood and affect. Career Development International, 21, 726–743.Google Scholar

Roberson, Q. M., & Colquitt, J. A. (2005). Shared and configural justice: A social network model of justice in teams. Academy of Management Review, 30, 595–607.Google Scholar

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523.Google Scholar

Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, E. L. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 756–769.Google Scholar

Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Justice as a dependent variable: Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1597–1609.Google Scholar

Scott, B. A., Garza, A., Conlon, D. E., & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Why do managers act fairly in the first place? A daily investigation of “hot” and “cold” motives and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1571–1591.Google Scholar

Sinclair, R. C., & Mark, M. M. (1991). Mood and the endorsement of egalitarian macrojustice versus equity-based microjustice principles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 369–375.Google Scholar

Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. T. (2004). Third-party reactions to employee (mis)treatment: A justice perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 183–229.Google Scholar

Spector, A. J. (1956). Expectations, fulfillment, and morale. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 52, 51–56.Google Scholar

Spencer, S., & Rupp, D. E. (2009). Angry, guilty, and conflicted: Injustice toward coworkers heightens emotional labor through cognitive and emotional mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 429–444.Google Scholar

Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Starr, S. A., & Williams, R. M., Jr. (1949). The American solider: Adjustment during army life, Volume 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization–minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67–85.Google Scholar

Tepper, B. J., Dimotakis, N., Lambert, L. S., Koopman, J., Matta, F. K., Park, H. M., & Goo, W. (2018). Examining follower responses to transformational leadership from a dynamic, person–environment fit perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 1343–1368.Google Scholar

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

van den Bos, K. (2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: The role of affect as information in the psychology of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 482–498.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

van Dijke, M., Wildschut, T., Leunissen, J. M., & Sedikides, C. (2015). Nostalgia buffers the negative impact of low procedural justice on cooperation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 15–29.Google Scholar

van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 184–188.Google Scholar

Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. (2011). Daily customer mistreatment and employee sabotage against customers: Examining emotion and resource perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 312–334.Google Scholar

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Staw, B. M. & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Volume 18, pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT, and London, UK: Elsevier Science/JAI.Google Scholar

Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 786–794.Google Scholar

Wilkin, C. L., & Connelly, C. E. (2015). Green with envy and nerves of steel: Moderated mediation between distributive justice and theft. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 160–164.Google Scholar

Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62, 259–295.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.