| Examining Layoff Survivors' Changes In Commitment: The Effects Of Procedural And Interactional Injustice |
| | Lavelle, James J. | U. of Utah / Catholic U. of America | Lavelle@cua.edu | (202) 319-4733 |
| | Integrating insights from the multiple commitments perspective of employee attachment to the organization, social identity theory, and the group-value model of procedural justice, this study examines how perceptions of organizational injustice influence survivors' commitment to relevant organizational groups. In particular, this research examines how and why survivors' commitment to such groups may change in response to different types of injustice. Challenging current justice theory, it was found that interactional justice and procedural justice are unique constructs associated with different organizational sources and organizational outcomes. In addition, it was found that the workgroup becomes an increasingly important source of identification and commitment within the post-layoff organization. |
| | Keywords: Organizational justice; Layoffs; Multiple commitments |
| A Social Identity Perspective on Organizational Justice Among Layoff Survivors |
| | Mollica, Kelly Anne | Wake Forest U. | kelly.mollica@mba.wfu.edu | (336)-758-1887 |
| | Organizational justice research has largely taken an individualistic approach toward justice perceptions. This study explored the role of social identity (age, gender, and race) and justice perceptions in survivors' reactions to layoffs. 597 managers and professionals responded to a scenario-based survey. Subjects were in one of four group impact conditions, depending on which group of employees was laid off in numbers disproportionate to their numerical representation in the organization: age greater than or equal to 40, women, white males, or racial minorities laid off. Both distributive and procedural justice were manipulated. In all four group impact conditions, when subjects'own identity group was disproportionately impacted, they were more likely to judge the layoff as unfair to their identity group than subjects whose identity group was not disproportionately impacted. Surprisingly, procedural justice had little effect in mitigating perceptions of injustice. Identity-based judgments of unfairness were related to lower leader support and organizational commitment, and higher turnover intention and propensity to litigate had survivors been laid off themselves. In some, but not all group impact conditions, identity-based justice judgments mediated the relationship between group impact and survivor attitudes. This study demonstrated that when people perceive unjust treatment of members of their identity group, they judge this treatment as unfair although they themselves were observers rather than victims of the injustice. The findings also suggest that a single model of identity-based justice may not be applicable across social identity groups. |
| | Keywords: organizational justice; social identity; layoff survivors |
| The Relationship Between Empolyer Policies Towards Disability And Perceptions Of Fairness |
| | Roberts, Karen | Michigan State U. | robert15@msu.edu | 517-432-3984 |
| | Markel, Karen S. | Michigan State U. | markelka@pilot.msu.edu | 517-432-0188 |
| | This paper examines the relationship between filing a workers' compensation claim, employee perceptions of employer disability-related policies and injured employees' perceptions of their employers' fairness. Fairness was measured by three types of justice, distributive, interactional and organizational. Individuals were sampled through health care provider treatment reports of work related illness mandated by the state government. Workers were sampled from those treated for hand/wrist, lower back or shoulder injury from repetitive motion. This research is limited to 1087 workers surveyed across two waves but who had not made a workers' compensation claim at time one. Regression results provide support that filing a workers' compensation claim reduces perceptions of employer fairness and that the supportiveness of the employer environment for disability increases perceptions of fairness. Additional tests of both mediating and moderating effects indicate that employer supportiveness mediates interactional and organizational justice perceptions and moderates distributive justice perceptions. |
| | Keywords: Justice; worker's compensation; disability policy |
| Primacy Effects in Justice Judgments |
| | Kray, Laura J. | Northwestern U. | lkray@nwu.edu | (847)-491-4439 |
| | Lind, E. Allan | Duke U. | alind@mail.duke.edu | 919-660-7849 |
| | Thompson, Leigh | Northwestern U. | lthompson@nwu.edu | 847-467-3505 |
| | Two studies tested predictions from fairness heuristic theory about the temporal patterning of changes in fairness judgments. The theory predicts that fairness judgments will be especially
sensitive to outcomes, treatment, and procedures experienced early in a relationship and that this
primacy effect will be moderated by the perceiver's level of involvement with the group in
question. In the first study, a laboratory experiment, participants working on a series of three
decision-making tasks experienced resource failures that interfered with their productivity. Prior
to the work periods, the participants either had or had not undergone a manipulation designed to
induce greater identification with the work group. In a manipulation of interactional fairness, a
new supervisor denied the participant the opportunity to explain their problems on the first, the
second, or the third of three work trials, or the supervisor never denied them the opportunity to
explain their problems. As predicted, there was a substantial primacy effect both on fairness judgments and on acceptance of authority in the high identification conditions and no evidence of
such an effect in the low identification conditions. In the second study, a survey about personal
disputes, the correlation between perceived voice and fairness ratings was greater when the
respondent both had little prior knowledge of the other disputant and when the respondent
expected future interaction than when either of these conditions was not met, as predicted by the
theory. The implications for understanding the psychology of organizational justice and for real-
world justice phenomena are discussed.
|
| | Keywords: justice; fairness; primacy effects |
| What Constitutes an "Acceptable" Social Account: An Investigation of Content and Source Factors |
| | Frey, Francis M. | Clinch Valley College | f_frey@clinch.edu | (540) 328-0291 |
| | Cobb, Anthony T. | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State U. | tcobb@vt.edu | (540) 231-6363 |
| | While we know social accounts can have important effects on perceptions of fairness, we still do not know what makes them "acceptable" to account receivers. Petty and Cacioppo's (1984) elaboration likelihood model is used as a theoretical base to explore this issue. This study uses an experimental design in a pay-for-performance context to assess the impact of message specificity (high vs. low), source expertise (high vs. low), and outcome involvement (higher vs. lower) on the acceptability of a justification for a change in a distributive criterion that results in a loss for subjects. Other dependent measures include procedural, interactional, and distributive fairness; commitment to the trainer and the task; and complaints.
Results indicate a main effect of specificity such that specific justifications are more acceptable than vague justifications regardless of the level of involvement. Justifications delivered by an "expert trainer" are generally more acceptable than "non-experts" under conditions of lower involvement. This effect reverses itself, however, under higher involvement. Acceptability is positively related to all dependent measures with the exception of complaints, which has a negative relationship. |
| | Keywords: Accounts; Elaboration Likelihood Model; Expertise |