Instead, the only thing suggested is this: Fricker’s notion of testimonial justice cannot do what needs to be done in relation to the problem of intellectual deference. Hence, the need for a different notion of justice in testimonial contexts, and in testi- monial contexts involving the provision of intellectual advice in particular, in addition to (not instead of) that provided by Fricker through her notion of testimonial justice. Exercising the relevant kind of proceduraljustice involves listening without epistemic discrimination, in the specific sense of listening without any regard for the epistemic merits of what is being said, and then explaining why what is being said has no bear- ing on the correct intellectual recommendation, in cases where it does not. By listen- ing without discrimination in this manner, we are making an effort—hopefully per- ceived by the agent as such—to make any given person feel that they are provided with an opportunity for input. By moreover evaluating that input in a manner only sensitive to the facts, and explaining why that input cannot be taken to alter the ver- dict on what is the right intellectual recommendation in the relevant case, we are also trying to make people feel that their views are still given consideration in a factual manner, whether or not those views factor into the relevant recommendation.
A consistent feature of public sector performance pay schemes has been the emphasis on the role of ind ividual performance pay as an incentive for better performance. For example, in the mid-1990s, managers in the Employment Service had favoured group schemes because of the agency’s recent reorganization on the basis of team working in its local offices, but had to bow to pressure from the Treasury to implement individual PRP. One of the presuppositions of individual PRP is that employees will increase their individual effort, physical or mental, in order to achieve the extra performance required to the additional reward. This assumes that the employees concerned value that kind of extra reward at the margin, as distinct from having a good basic salary. It also assumes that changes in performance can be clearly attributed to the efforts of particular individuals. Imposition of inappropriate incentives can undermine employee perceptions of proceduraljustice in two ways. At one level, the mismatch of incentives with employee motivations will increase the unpredictability of rewards, and teachers may see what they regard as the wrong kind of performance attracting rewards, and the most valuable performance going unrewarded. At another level, it displays a disregard, or a lack of respect, for employees’ own judgement, sometimes referred to as the ‘interactional’ component of proceduraljustice (Folger and Cropanzano 1998).
Licensed under Creative Common Page 2 collected data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics which included frequency counts, means, percentages, correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis, with the aid of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0 for Windows. The study findings indicate that teachers’ proceduraljustice significantly influences teacher’s organizational commitment. The study recommends that school management should involve teachers in decision making, show dignity and respect when explaining decision outcomes to concerned teachers. The school management should also adopt a proactive approach to understand teachers’ perceptions of proceduraljustice, and provide appropriate working environment in order to reap benefits including cost associated to teacher retentions.
The present research investigated the role of groups’ relative social standing on people’s expectations of fairness to establish whether lower status outgroups are expected to receive different treatment from authorities than those perceived to be of equal status to the ingroup. By referring to expectations of authority fairness, we focus on two facets, namely PJ (operationalised as the extent to which people are provided voice by authorities; see Folger, 1977) and outcome favourability. Concerning the former, we predicted that because proceduraljustice may enhance social standing, people may think authorities should give more voice to higher status outgroups than lower status outgroups, and more voice to the ingroup than the outgroup regardless of status. Concerning the latter, given the increased importance of outcomes rather than fairness at the group-level, we predicted that group status may shape expectations of how authorities should distribute outcomes. However, the direction of this effect was not specified as both directions are theoretically plausible: people may expect authorities to give more favourable outcomes to lower status groups (as they are less threatening to the status of the ingroup) or more favourable outcomes to the equal status groups (because they may be perceived as more deserving of the outcomes due to their status). Finally, the present research aimed to replicate the findings of Platow et al. (2015) which demon- strated a positive relationship between social identification and ingroup voice expectations.
Similarly, Sprott and Greene (2008) conducted survey interviews with a sample of 242 children and adolescents appearing before the youth court in Canada. Respondents were interviewed once at their first court appearance and asked about their feelings about how they had been treated by their lawyer, other courts officials and the judge, as well as their views on the legitimacy of the legal system as a whole. The respondents were then interviewed again after they had been sentenced using the same questionnaire in order to explore changes in their views over time. In order to measure proceduraljustice the researchers used measures developed by Tyler (1989) in studies with adults. To find out how respondents felt they were treated by different authority figures in court, respondents were asked to rate their agreements with various statements seen to indicate proceduraljustice such as whether: their lawyer believes in them, listens to them, fights hard in court, behaves honestly, gives good advice, and treats them with respect. They were also asked to what extent they agreed that the judge ‘behaves honestly, follows the rules, considers their innocence, acts in an impartial way’ (Sprott and Greene 2008:9-10). Scores were then calculated for respondents depending on the level of agreement with these statements.
Although the nature of this relationship is significant, little is known about the mediating effect of proceduraljustice in performance appraisal models. Many scholars argue that the role of proceduraljustice as mediator is less emphasized in previous study because they neglected the role of human affective in influencing the effect of performance appraisal communication on individual attitudes and behaviours in the workplace besides of they have much described the performance appraisal characteristics (Sabeen & Mehboob, 2008; Sogra et al., 2009). As a result, it did not provide sufficient guidelines that can be employ by practitioners to plan effective performance appraisal policies in order to improve employees’ feelings of proceduraljustice in responsive organizations (Cloutier & Vilhuber, 2008; Kavanagh et al., 2007). Hence, it motivates the researchers to further explore the nature of this relationship.
The study examined the relationship between proceduraljustice and employee loyalty of Deposit Money Banks in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The study adopted a cross-sectional survey research design. Primary data was collated using structured questionnaire. The population of the study was population of one thousand four hundred (1400) across the twenty one (21) Deposit Money Banks in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The reliability of the instrument was achieved by the use of the Cronbach Alpha Coefficient with all the items scoring above 0.70. The hypotheses were tested using the Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation Coefficient. The tests were carried out at a 95% confidence interval and a 0.05 level of significance. The result of the findings revealed that there is a significant relationship between proceduraljustice and employee loyalty of Deposit Money Banks in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The study thus concluded that proceduraljustice significantly influences employee loyalty of Deposit Money Banks in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The study thus recommends that Deposit Money Banks managers should first improve the proceduraljustice and hence increase overall levels of perceived justice by involving employees in the procedures used in making decisions and allocating rewards. Proceduraljustice can be fostered further through employee involvement which gives them a voice during a decision-making process, influence over the outcome or by adherence to fair process criteria.
that are often carried out have shown that the policy context hurts employees (Hartman, Yrle and Galle, 1999). As a result, there are still teachers who feel disadvantaged because they do not get the same workload as other teachers. The above contradicts findings from researchers (Adams, 1965; Deutsch, 1975; Homans, 1961; Leventhal, 1976 in Colquitt, 2001) which state that the results or allocation of work within an organization is fairly distributed. This result also rejects the statement from Colquitt (2001) which says that distributive justice will dominate from other forms of justice. And does not support the findings of Tjahjono (2011) which states that distributive justice has a positive effect on altruism. In a variety of situations circumstances that make what is considered distributive fair tend to change as well (Elliott and Meeker, 1986; Sinclair and Mark, 1991). The results of this study also support what Greenberg and Cropanzo (2001) have demonstrated, which has demonstrated the relationship between proceduraljustice and distributive justice that can influence each other. Where the existence of policy can cause distributive injustice at one time and procedural fairness at another time, which they call the point-of-view effect. It can be noted that in the context of performance evaluation, a policymaker will be able to give special consideration to lecturers who need work (Longnecker, et al., 1987). So that teachers who have different competencies in performing basic tasks and functions will get the same workload. And to be able to do the same work and compensation with his colleagues, sometimes they do more work that is not following their competencies and must complete a difficult task (Smith and Spears, 1996). In general, it can be concluded that
According to proceduraljustice theory, then, the way in which power-holders treat subordinates conveys status and identity relevant information. When treatment is fair and respectful, this encourages people to merge their sense of self with the wider group the power- holder represents. Such identification affects behaviour because people embedded in social groups are motivated to act in ways that satisfy the requirements of particular roles and relationships within the group – they draw value, worth and status from those roles and relationships (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Conforming to the expectations of social roles enables people to ‘to establish and maintain a satisfying self-defining relationship to another person or a group’ (Kelman, 1958: 53). Once such a process is under way, abiding by the norms and values attached to reciprocal-role relationships within social groups becomes important to people not only because they agree with the norms and values – they internalize the values of the group to which they feel they belong and act in ways that they find intrinsically rewarding – but also because they gain value and worth from the self-defining relationship with other group members and the group itself (Tyler & Blader, 2000). Conforming to group norms and values is a way of demonstrating and reproducing group membership. On this account, the legitimacy of group authorities is, in part, a social norm to which group members are motivated to adhere (Horne 2009).
Jahangir, N., Akbar, M., & Begum, N. (2006). The role of social power, proceduraljustice, organizational commitment and job satisfaction to engender organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of ABAC, 26(3), 21- 36. Jam, F.A., Haq, I., & Fatima, T. (2012). Psychological contract and job outcomes:
Further support for this view can be found in the literature that views justice processes as an instance of interaction ritual chains (see Collins, 2004, and for the application to justice processes, Rossner, 2011, 2014; Strang et al., 2006). Randall Collins (2004) micro- sociology describes how individuals interact in emotionally charged rituals, which in turn creates a sense of social solidarity. He describes an interaction ritual ‘ as an instance of momentarily focused emotion and attention producing a momentarily shared reality, which thereby generates solidarity and symbols of group membership ’ (p. 7). This shares the emphasis on group values and engagement with the proceduraljustice litera- ture, but Collins squarely places the emphasis on both the working mechanism and the outcome in communion constructs: it is the togetherness of and interaction between par- ticipants that is key in providing the effects of the interaction ritual. The main outcome, in turn, is located in terms like belonging, membership and solidarity, rather than an individ- ual, agency-based constructs. In both the literature on social sharing and that on interac- tional ritual chains, therefore, what is being said exactly is not as important as the form, rhythm and emotional charge of the ongoing verbal interaction, with the participants being in proximity to each other. The purpose of this interaction is better understood in terms of connection, solidarity and group membership, rather than achieving a goal.
theoretical models convey a very specific and we argue rather limited set of propositions about underlying social psychological dynamics, the range of social categories at work and how encounters with the police relate to these. Drawing upon research and theory in crowd psychology we highlight the importance of historical group level dynamics within specific encounters with police and how these can function to shape identity, perceptions of procedural fairness, police legitimacy and self-regulation. We conclude by putting forward a series of propositions about how proceduraljustice theory can be developed through fuller recognition of the dialogic nature of encounters with police. In particular, we propose the value of incorporating an ‘elaborated’ or context-oriented model of underlying social psychology and in making a (re)turn toward ethnographic observation as a means of studying the complexity and ongoing nature of interactions with the police.
in PG-PS Madubaru justice compensation obtained indicate dissatisfaction when compared with other employees of PKWT. According to Greenberg (1996), Job satisfaction is one dimension of work behavior that is influenced by organizational justice. In PG-PS Madubaru, the importance of organization to be fair in distributing compensation to employees will affect how satisfied the employees while working in the organization are no exception PKWT employees. While other factors that allegedly affect the job satisfaction, namely, ProceduralJustice Compensation. According to Robbins and Judge (2008), proceduraljustice is a definition of perceived fairness of the process used to determine the distribution of rewards. This, of course, involves the role of the collective labor agreement as has been done by the management at PG-PS Madubaru. Meanwhile, according to Noe et.al. (2011), proceduraljustice is a concept of fairness that focuses on the methods used to determine the benefits received. However, in reality, the fairness of the procedure felt by employees of PG-PS Madubaru has not been fully implemented fairly. This is because there are some employees of PKWT Borongan who feel the lack of accuracy of information and representation of employees of PKWT Borongan in the discussion of procedures in determining compensation (Observation Results, December 15, 2016). According to Tjahjono (2011), distributive justice and proceduraljustice have a complex relationship to satisfaction. Therefore, moderation variable is needed to make it easier to measure the influence of distributive justice and proceduraljustice on job satisfaction . In addition to the factors above, there are other factors that are suspected to have an influence on both factors above in affecting job satisfaction, namely: Collectivistic. According to Luthans (2006), collectivistic is characterized by a strong social framework in which people differentiate their group from other groups. Thus, the researcher would like to conduct a more in-depth study of the effects of distributive justice compensation and proceduraljustice compensation on job satisfaction with and collectivistic as a moderated variable. Study on PKWT employees in PG-PS Madubaru Yogyakarta.
Licensed under Creative Common Page 99 Budhwar, and Cgen, 2002). When employees perceive they had been treated in a just manner and given a voice in the performance appraisal process (proceduraljustice), a degree of trust will develop. Research findings also indicate that organizational commitment is positively associated with both proceduraljustice and organizational trust (Honarvar, Honarvar, &Gholizadeh, 2015). We suggest that proceduraljustice effect organizational trust via organizational commitment. Based on exchange theory (Blue 1964), employee’s perception of procedural prompt her to reciprocate with organizational commitment, which will in turn positively influence her affective commitment to the organization. Hence,
The outcomes of testing direct effects model have not recognised a direct effect of communication about pay systems on job performance. The inclusion of proceduraljustice into analysis confirms that it has played a moderating role in the relationship between communication about pay systems and job performance. These findings demonstrate that the notion of proceduraljustice has been successfully understood in the pay system model of Malaysian private institutions of higher learning. Therefore, current research and practices within compensation management models need to consider feelings of proceduraljustice as an important part of compensation system. If perceptions of proceduraljustice is integrated with compensation systems, we may find positive subsequent personal outcomes (e.g. satisfaction, commitment, performance, ethics, and productivity and quality). These positive outcomes may eventually motivate employees to support both organizational and human resource management goals and strategies.
Performance management is a continuous process that starts right from the time an employee joins the organization till the time he leaves the organization. And for perfor- mance management of organizational or operational activity, that specification of being a “continuous activity” has to remain there. It is because it is the continuous monitoring of any entity that ultimately identifies the concerns for improvement and corrective action. Economic crisis in the recent decades in different parts of the world has stimulated the organizations to opt for downsizing and right sizing. But in the countries like Pakistan where private sector organizations have not been regularized as such; employees in them are facing issues like nepotism, network based hiring and at times they leave the jobs themselves. Hence the turnover ratio in private sector organizations is high in countries like Pakistan. Business managers who want stable organizations with reduced turnover ratio, may opt for this model presented that is presented in this study and this would help them understand the practices which would enhance proceduraljustice in their organiza- tions.
The positive relationship between organizational justice and workers’ affective commitment to the organization has been empirically proven by the academic researchers in the field of organizational psychology. However, in more specific terms, what possible behavioral or other variable(s) may create the strength in this positive relationship is something that still needs to be explored in depth in the current and future studies. Drawing from the literature on trust, commitment and organizational Justice, the purpose of this paper is to conceptually develop a research framework that may help future researchers in studying the mediating effect of organizational trust in the predictive relationship between perceptions of proceduraljustice and affective organizational commitment. After a critical analysis and review of the pertinent literature, authors of the paper present research hypotheses addressing the probable gap that exits in the relevant body of knowledge.
The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 14.0 was used to analyze the questionnaire data. Firstly, validity and reliability analyses were conducted to determine the psychometric properties of questionnaire data used for this study. The main advantage of using these analyses may lead to acceptable research findings (Edward & Thomas, 1993; Morgan et al., 1999). Secondly, a Pearson’s correlation analysis was first conducted to test the direct effect of participation in pay systems on job satisfaction and job commitment. Thirdly, a moderated multiple regression analysis (as recommended by Cohen and Cohen, 1983) was used to test the moderating effect of proceduraljustice in the relationship between participation in pay systems, job satisfaction and job commitment. In this model testing, potential variables were determined based on regression tests and subjective decisions (e.g., prior knowledge, relevant research, in-depth interviews and pilot study).
This study is an attempt to establish a link between ethical leadership style and its impact on employee discretionary behaviors of knowledge hiding and sharing, underlying mechanisms like citizenship behavior and moderating effect of proceduraljustice is also studied. Evidence exist in the past literature predicting knowledge sharing as a consequence of ethical leadership behavior (DeTienne et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2015; Srivastava et al., 2006; Kacmar et al., 2011; Lam, et al, , 2016; Mayer, er al., 2010.). Past researches have also time and again found links of ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (Chughtai et al. 2014; Newman et al. 2014; Kacmar et al. 2011; Mayer et al. 2008; Demirtas et al., 2014; Mayer et al. 2008; Ruiz-Palomino et al. 2010). So it is concluded that ethical leadership translates into more sharing and that organizational citizenship behavior acts as the underlying mechanism (Murtaza 2016). Furthermore, proceduraljustice is also found to be linked to ethical leadership as employees when perceive to be treated fairly by the organization will also choose to opt for prosocial behavior like knowledge sharing (Loi et al. 2014; Tepper et al. 2009; Avey et al., 2012, Bharati et al., 2015) and shun away from knowledge hiding (Donate et al., 2015).
Proceduraljustice is defined as the fairness of the process by which outcomes are determined (Lind & Tyler, 1988). It is considered to exist when procedures embody certain types of normatively accepted principles, such as the rules of consistency, bias-suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicality (Leventhal, 1980). In addition, Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng (2001) state that proceduraljustice includes the consistency of procedures, freedom from bias in carrying out procedures, accurate information for making procedural decisions, correction of inaccurate procedural decisions, conformity of procedures with prevailing standards of ethics, and the consideration of group opinions when carrying out procedures. The theorists of proceduraljustice have also argued that it has a symbolic function that helps to strengthen the subordinate's relationship with their supervisor (Korsgarrd, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995), and affects subordinates' positive attitudes towards decisions that supervisors make. As supervisors play an important role in determining how justice is perceived in the workplace (Hon & Lu, 2010), their treatment can promote positive attitudes and behavior among subordinates, which can, in turn, benefit the supervisor and ultimately the organization as a whole (Yukl, 2002). In addition, previous studies indicate that supervisors' fair treatment towards their subordinates enhances positive exchanges between them (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Yang, Mossholder & Peng, 2009).