This study was researched and prepared as part of a course in the doctoral program at the University of Florida.

1. 1
From Social to Organizational Justice
Joel Davis – Brad Labrum – Laurence J. Pino
MAN7288:Leading Change
DBA Class of 2020

2. 2
Social Justice
Where it all began
Addressed the
concept of the role
of the polis in
ensuring social
justice for citizens.

3. 3
Social Justice*
Where it trended
18th Century
David Hume/Immanuel Kant
17th Century/18th Century
John Locke/Jean-Jacques Rosseau
Addressed the
concept of social
justice by extending
the classical notion
of the social contract
1971
* Luigi Taparelli: Jesuit – not relevant,
but did coin the term.

4. 4
Social Justice Organizational Justice
First to coin the term
Outcome
Process
Reactive
Proactive
& Jerald
Greenberg
Ohio State
University
1987

5. 5
Overview of Organizational Justice
Distributive Justice
Fairness in outcomes of
decisions, compensation,
rewards and punishments
(Homans, 1961; Adams,
1965; Deutsch, 1975)
Fairness in Outcome
Procedural Justice
Fairness in how decisions
are made (Thibault &
Walker, 1975)
Fairness in Process
Individuals Organizations

6. 6
Distributive
Justice:
Fairness in
Decision-Making
Outcomes
• Stoiffer et al (1949): Concept of relative deprivation
• Homans (1961) and Adams (1965): Equity Theory
o Output (pay, promotion etc.) should be in
proportion to input (skill, education, experience).
✓ “A man in an exchange relationship with
another will expect that the rewards of each
man will be proportional to his costs”
(Homans, 1961)
o Adams (1965) explores other consequences of
unfair exchange, i.e. Outcome Reactive.
✓ Negative equity leads to attempts to restore
equality (job performance changes etc.)
(Adams, 1965; Greenberg, 1987a)
• Deutsch (1975) and Levanthal (1976): Other
objectives like social harmony will result in other
norms like “equality” or “need.”
6

7. 7
Distributive Justice
• In the 70’s and early 80’s, the field moved from reactions of individuals being
rewarded to the behavior of individuals doing the rewarding, and a significant amount
of the research effort is devoted to questions of allocations.
o Allocation norm is defined as “a social rule which specifies criteria that define certain distributions
of rewards and resources” Levanthal (1976) [Outcome Reactive to Outcome Proactive]
o Following the norm has other implications, namely that different inputs are rewarded with
different outputs, leading to differences among those rewarded, and potential conflicts therein.
Levanthal (1976, 1980)
o Different goals can and should result in differing allocations (Deutsch, 1975; Levanthal, 1976)
• A number of studies have confirmed some of the key theories, and it is widely
accepted that outcome or allocation inequity leads to predictable individual
reactions in terms of job performance and satisfaction (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992;
Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993).
7

8. 8
Procedural
Justice:
Fairness in
Decision-Making
Processes
• The theory comes from the work in the legal literature of Thibault &
Walker, 1975.
o Inquisitorial Systems- The judge and his/her agents develop the
arguments
o Adversarial systems of justice- Those being judged participate
(Voice)
o Thibault & Walker (1975) found that the participatory model
was preferred and perceived to be fairer.
• Leventhal’s (1980) six rules for fair allocative processes:
o (1) Consistency (2) Bias Suppression (3) Accuracy (4)
Correctability (5) Representativeness (6) Ethicality
o Procedure in the context was defined as “an Individuals belief
that the allocative procedures which satisfy certain criteria are
fair and appropriate” Leventhal (1980)
• This theory was applied to organizational studies by Greenberg &
Folger (1983, 1985)
o The concepts of choice and voice were introduced (Greenberg
& Folger 1983).
o These concepts were later applied to research on making
performance management more equitable by giving employees
input (Voice).
• Procedural Justice is the perception of fairness in decision-making
by the people who are subjected to the decision outcome
(Tyler and Lind, 1992).
8

9. 9
Procedural Justice Studies Overview
Procedural fairness has been extensively studied in the literature
• Job Satisfaction, (Alexander and Ruderman, 1987)
• Aggression (Folger and Skarlicki, 1988; Greenberg and Alge, 1998)
• Layoffs (Brockner and Greenberg, 1990; Brockner, et. al., 1992)
• Theft (Greenberg, 1990a, 2002),
• Drug Testing in the Workplace (Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991)
• Organizational Citizenship Behavior (i.e., helpful and supportive actions by employees that are not part
of their formal job description), (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998; Greenberg, 1990a, 1993a; Moorman, et.
al., 1991), enhanced commitment to the organization (Martin and Bennett,1996)
• Commitment, Attachment, and Trust in Top Management Teams (Korsgaard et. al., 1995)
• Intentions to remain with the organization (Olson-Buchanan, 1996)
• Revenge (Bies and Tripp, 1996)
• Deviance (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997)
• Turnover, (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998)
• Performance (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998)
• Sabotage and Retaliation (Ambrose, et al., 2002)
Fairness in “how” decisions being made (Thibault & Walker, 1975)

10. 10
Procedural Justice
Fairness in the processes of decisions being made
10
Research has confirmed that
Procedural Justice has
organizational level
consequences, and is a better
predictor of organization
reactions such as commitment
and trust than Distributive
Justice (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992;
Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993; Cropanzo et. al.,
2002).
With Distributive Justice the
theory is that people are
affected by the Decision
Making Outcomes.With
Procedural Justice, people are
also affected by the Decision
Making Process (McFarlin and
Sweeney, 1992)

11. 11
Interactional
Justice:
Fairness in
Interpersonal
Relations
• The theory comes from Bies and Moag (1986) who
analyzed interpersonal communication and identified four
criteria of Interactional Justice: (1) Truthfulness
(2) Respect (3) Propriety (4) Justification
• Which brings us very conveniently to the class paper –
Greenberg (1990)
o The experiment tested employee theft before and
after a 15% pay cut. When the cut was thoroughly
explained, theft was reduced
o Greenberg (1990) doesn’t call this “Interactional
Justice”. In later works he adopts the term and
recommends splitting this into Interpersonal and
Informational Justice (Greenberg , 1993)
✓Interpersonal: Respect and Propriety
✓Informational: Truthfulness and Justification
• Research has confirmed that Interactional Justice has
supervisor level effects, and that it is a better predictor
than Distributive or Procedural Justice in reactions in
the immediate work environment with supervisors
(Colquitt 2001a)
11

12. 12
Informational
Justice
Truthfulness and
Justification
Greenberg (1990, 1993);
Colquitt 2001a
Interpersonal
Justice
Respect and propriety
Greenberg (1990, 1993);
Colquitt 2001a
Integrative– bringing it together
Interactional Justice
Bies & Moag (1986)
Procedural
Justice
Consistent and fair
process of making
decisions.
Thibaut & Walker (1975); Leventhal
(1980)
Greenberg & Folger (1983, 1985);
Tyler and Lind (1992)
Colquitt (2001) tested measures of Organizational Justice and found that the Four-Factor
Method (Distributive, Procedural, Interpersonal & Informational had distinct dimensions.
Distributive
Justice
Input/Output Fairness
Deutsch (1975), Leventhal (1976)
Equity Theory
Adams 1965
Individuals
Organizations
Supervisors

13. 13
Key Findings
Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice are distinct and discriminant concepts.
Interactional Justice is not a simple subset of Procedural Justice: it has different
correlations and dimensions.
While Interactional Justice is useful as a descriptive general term, Interpersonal Justice
and Informational Justice appear independently construct valid as useful predictors.
Job satisfaction is associated with Interactional Justice, not Procedural Justice.
Organizational Justice can be best seen as a Four-Factor model consisting of Distributive
Justice, Procedural Justice, Interpersonal Justice, and Informational Justice.
Procedural Justice variables set is a stronger predictor of organizational commitment
than other forms of Justice.
Similarly, Supervisor Justice is actually a stronger predictor of OCBs and organizational
commitment than Organizational Justice (Rupp and Cropanzano, 2002; Lido and Rupp, 2005, Horvath and
Andrews, 2007)
When information about process control is thorough, clear and unambiguous, mood has
little impact on perceptions of fairness; however, when information was omitted, mood
“filled in the gaps” and took over the perception of fairness.
What do we know? Quite a bit, as it turns out – and even more than here!

14. 14
Justice and Change – Based on the Journey
“The psychological processes by which this theory suggests that leaders influence people to
change their thoughts, attitudes, emotions, or behaviors?”
Managers can now provide
four distinct strategic focal
areas (Distributive,
Procedural, Interpersonal, and
Informational), as well as
ancillary considerations of
Supervisory Justice, for
improving perceptions of
fairness in the organization
and influencing resultant
behaviors.
Organizations now have
opportunities to better train
managers on the implications
implicit in LMX in eliciting and
expanding individual
performance and OCBs in the
workplace.
Managers now have an extensive
toolbox of useful measures on
which to rely from recruiting,
interviewing and hiring, to
providing performance
evaluations and appraisals to
vetting intended policies and
procedures, and so forth.

15. 15
Ongoing Debates
Have we finally reached a point where procedural and Interactional Justice can now
be seen as different?
Have we finally reached a point where the Four-Factor model can now be used to
focus on and better understand efficiency in particular policies or procedures?
Is it possible that we have reached a point where further information might come
not from additional parsing of concepts, but from aggregation of Justice concepts?
Does LMX (Leader Member Exchange) Theory marginalize, minimize or possibly
mediate Interactive Justice?
Are concepts of Formal Justice vs. Informal Justice (Blader &Tyler, 2003) or
Organizational Justice vs. Supervisory Justice (Rupp and Cropanzaro, 2002) just “old wine
in a new bottle” or useful concepts to explore overlaps between Justice literature
and LMX?
What are the appropriate measures to differentiate the constructs?

16. 16
Battle of the Measures
When measures are not tightly circumscribed, what we are measuring potentially ends
up confounding the results.
In short, the opportunity, now that we have greater clarity with respect to construct-
driven boundary conditions – as did Colquitt (2001) who validated a new Justice
measure based on more literal interpretations of Thibaut and Walker (1975), Leventhal
(1980) and Bies and Moay (1986), surfacing respect and propriety (Interpersonal
Justice) as well as truthfulness and justification (Informational Justice) – is to be far
more discriminant in identifying items and measures.
Folger and Kanusky (1989) collapsed 26
survey items from Levanthal (1980), Thibaut
and Walker (1975) and Bies and Moay (1986)
which properly identified that Procedural
Justice was a predictor of organizational
trust and commitment, but failed to identify
the supervisor as distinct from the
organization.
Moorman (1991) created a 13-item measure
tapping the same three sources, but also
including Interactional Justice items with
manager-oriented versions. After a confirmatory
factor analysis, Distributive, Procedural and
Interactive Justice were shown as distinct and
Interactive Justice was a better predictor of
citizenship behavior than the other two.

17. 17
Measures of Justice
Colquitt (2001) tested measures of Organizational Justice and found that the Four-Factor
Method (Distributive, Procedural, Interpersonal & Informational) had distinct dimensions.
Colquitt, 2001

18. 18
Critiques
1. Differentiation creates multicollinearity. Studies using Colquitt’s scales:
o Distributive/Procedural 50’s
o Procedural/Informational 60’s
o Interpersonal/Informational 60’s
o Others 40’s
What should we parse from the current literature?
2. Most Justice literature is based on cognitive theory (relational model, fairness
theory, fairness heuristic theory, social exchange theory). On the one side,
multiple theories plant a nice landscape; on the other hand, it may be missing
the reactions and responses that come not from intellect, but from emotions.
Hence missing is the role of “affect” in the theory.
3. Current Justice literature has justice as the exogenous IndependentVariable (IV)
and specific behaviors as predicted outcomes (DVs). That leaves the literature
shallow with respect to the antecedents required to foster adherence to justice
relations.

19. 19
Where the Field Is Going
Open questions in Organizational Justice, and in how the theory is evolving
After 30 years of conceptual differentiation, would the field
now be better off by aggregating concepts?
After 30 years of theories of justice as exogenous independent
variables, might we be better served treating justice as a
dependent endogenous variable in causal models?
Based on the introduction of LMX into the closer examination of
Interpersonal Justice, Informational Justice, and potentially Supervisory
Justice, what role might LMX play in an individual’s assessment of
dimensions of Organizational Justice and associated behavioral outcomes?
1
2
3

20. 20
Appendix

21. 21
Plausible Model for Aggregation
The literature is mixed in the six studies that have operationalized “Overall Fairness” resulting
in it being seen as a mediator, moderator, as well as an antecedent, and/or consequent in the
model.

22. 22
Plausible Model for Integrating Justice and Affect
Emotions (Short-Term Feelings
States directed to a specific target):
Happiness, pride, gratitude, anger,
sadness, fear, envy.
Moods (Feeling States in intensity,
larger duration and lacking a specific
target): Positive/Negative
Trait Affectivity (Dispositional
Emotions and Moods):
Positive/Negative
The Journey Continues

23. 23
Bibliometrics
An analytical approach to understanding the structure of the field
Identifying the
knowledge base
of a topic or
research field and
its intellectual
structure
Examining the
research front (or
conceptual
structure) of a
topic or research
field
Producing a
social network
structure of a
particular
scientific
community

24. 24
Bibliometric Analysis
• Searched for Organizational Justice on
Web of Science (and the four factors
that relate to it)
• Downloaded all articles, and then
removed articles that were not from A
or B journals
• Removed Duplicates
• Data set was 1,491 articles from 15
journals and 2,606 authors
o Included all meta data
o Including the abstract
Main Information about data
Documents 1,491
Sources (Journals, Books, etc.) 15
Keywords Plus (ID) 2,538
Author's Keywords (DE) 2,530
Period 1977 - 2018
Average citations per documents 59.86
Authors 2606
Author Appearances 4,074
Authors of single authored documents 114
Authors of multi authored documents 2,492
Documents per Author 0.572
Authors per Document 1.75
Co-Authors per Documents 2.73
Collaboration Index 1.93

25. 25
Authors
Top 20

26. 26
Scientific Production

27. 27
Scientific Production

28. 28
Scientific Production

29. 29
Bibliometrics

30. 30
Bibliometrics

31. 31
Sources
Sources Articles
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 237
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS 223
JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 117
JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 114
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 107
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT 100
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES 91
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY 84
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT 74
SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH 73
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 67
HUMAN RELATIONS 61
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 60
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY 53
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 30

32. 32
Keywords
Author Keywords (DE) Articles Keywords-Plus (ID) Articles
JUSTICE 147 PROCEDURAL JUSTICE 392
ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE 114 ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE 380
PROCEDURAL JUSTICE 90 JUSTICE 336
FAIRNESS 87 PERFORMANCE 302
LEADERSHIP 57 MODEL 256
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE 52 PERCEPTIONS 253
TRUST 44 FAIRNESS 214
PERFORMANCE 35 SOCIAL-EXCHANGE 213
ORGANIZATIONAL 34 BEHAVIOR 192
ETHICS 32 JOB-SATISFACTION 186
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 30 WORK 166
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 28 SATISFACTION 151
ETHICAL LEADERSHIP 24 COMMITMENT 144
INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE 24 DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE 138
SOCIAL EXCHANGE 23 CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 128
COMMITMENT 22 ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 121

33. 33
Authors Authors Articles Authors
Articles
Fractionalized
DE CREMER D 28 DE CREMER D 10.08
COLQUITT JA 22 COLQUITT JA 8.66
CROPANZANO R 20 CROPANZANO R 7.48
BAUER TN 19 SKARLICKI DP 6.78
BROCKNER J 19 BROCKNER J 6.20
RUPP DE 17 RUPP DE 6.12
SKARLICKI DP 17 TYLER TR 5.87
MAYER DM 15 BAUER TN 5.58
TRUXILLO DM 15 GREENBERG J 5.50
VAN DIJKE M 15 AMBROSE ML 5.08
FOLGER R 14 SCHMINKE M 4.92
SCHMINKE M 14 TEPPER BJ 4.56
AMBROSE ML 13 BARCLAY LJ 4.50
CONLON DE 13 BEUGRE CD 4.50
LIDEN RC 13 GILLILAND SW 4.50
TYLER TR 12 TRUXILLO DM 4.46
JOHNSON RE 11 RYAN AM 4.42
LEUNG K 11 TREVINO LK 4.20
RYAN AM 11 LEUNG K 4.08
SCOTT BA 11 FOLGER R 4.03

34. 34
Authors Dominance
(Kumar & Kuman 2008)
Dominance
Factor
Multi
Authored First Authored
Rank by
Articles Rank by DF
TRUXILLO DM 0.6153846 13 8 10 1
RUPP DE 0.5000000 18 9 5 2
COLQUITT JA 0.4444444 18 8 4 3
BROCKNER J 0.4375000 16 7 7 4
SKARLICKI DP 0.4117647 17 7 6 5
LEUNG K 0.3846154 13 5 8 6
DE CREMER D 0.3684211 19 7 2 7
CROPANZANO R 0.3478261 23 8 1 8
SCHMINKE M 0.2307692 13 3 9 9
BAUER TN 0.2222222 18 4 3 10

35. 35
Citations
Paper TC TC per Year
COLQUITT JA;CONLON DE;WESSON MJ;PORTER COLH;NG KY,(2001),J. APPL. PSYCHOL. 1951 114.8
PODSAKOFF PM;MACKENZIE SB;PAINE JB;BACHRACH DG,(2000),J. MANAG. 1602 89.0
CROPANZANO R;MITCHELL MS,(2005),J. MANAG. 1567 120.5
COLQUITT JA,(2001),J. APPL. PSYCHOL. 1535 90.3
GRIFFETH RW;HOM PW;GAERTNER S,(2000),J. MANAG. 1363 75.7
MOORMAN RH,(1991),J. APPL. PSYCHOL. 1284 47.6
COHEN-CHARASH Y;SPECTOR PE,(2001),ORGAN. BEHAV. HUM. DECIS. PROCESS. 1245 73.2
GREENBERG J,(1990),J. MANAG. 1050 37.5
DIRKS KT;FERRIN DL,(2002),J. APPL. PSYCHOL. 1001 62.6
FOLGER R;KONOVSKY MA,(1989),ACAD. MANAGE. J. 955 32.9
BROWN ME;TREVINO LK;HARRISON DA,(2005),ORGAN. BEHAV. HUM. DECIS. PROCESS. 897 69.0
TEPPER BJ,(2000),ACAD. MANAGE. J. 852 47.3
SKARLICKI DP;FOLGER R,(1997),J. APPL. PSYCHOL. 835 39.8
MASTERSON SS;LEWIS K;GOLDMAN BM;TAYLOR MS,(2000),ACAD. MANAGE. J. 807 44.8
AGUILERA RV;RUPP DE;WILLIAMS CA;GANAPATHI J,(2007),ACAD. MANAGE. REV. 778 70.7
NIEHOFF BP;MOORMAN RH,(1993),ACAD. MANAGE. J. 685 27.4
BASS BM;STEIDLMEIER P,(1999),LEADERSH. Q. 678 35.7
MATHIEU J;MAYNARD MT;RAPP T;GILSON L,(2008),J. MANAG. 657 65.7
WHITENER EM;BRODT SE;KORSGAARD MA;WERNER JM,(1998),ACAD. MANAGE. REV. 630 31.5
MACKENZIE SB;PODSAKOFF PM;JARVIS CB,(2005),J. APPL. PSYCHOL. 616 47.4