Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Organizational justice case study
Organizational justice case study
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Organizational justice case study
Human existence takes place in societal institutions where interpersonal communication and cooperation is necessary for co-existence. The benefits gained from participation in these institutions are either economical, socioemotional, or a combination of both. Economic benefits provide a means to obtain material goods and comfort, while socioemotional benefits provide individuals with status or value within a group. How these benefits are distributed across society is of high importance to the individuals (Schminke, Ambrose, & Noel, 1997). Generally speaking, society expects some type of equality measure. Organizational justice refers to the role of fairness in the workplace. Fairness is a perception related to three types of justice: distributive, procedural, and interactional.
Prior to 1975, organizational justice research focused on distributive justice. Distributive justice is determined to be fair or unfair based on the perception of equity among stakeholders within a specific group or class (Schminke et al., 1997). Stakeholders determine fairness of distribution through comparison of others. If all members within a class or group are receiving the same amount of benefit for their contributions, the organization is perceived to be fair. Individuals are more likely to sacrifice on behalf of the collective group if they believe the organization is fair and just (Schminke et al., 1997). Conversely, if benefits are not distributed equally within the class, individuals are more likely to view the organization as unfair which can create tension leading to deviant behaviors (Al-zu’bi, 2010).
According to social exchange theory, people assess fairness by considering the outcome compared to the contributions. Alloc...
... middle of paper ...
...61&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001, June). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.425
Greenberg, J. S., & Cropanzano, R. S. (Eds.). (2001). Advances in organizational justice [ebrary ]. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/cochise/Doc?id=10040245
Hastings, S. E., & Finegan, J. E. (2011, June). The role of ethical ideology in reactions to injustice. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 689-703. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0704-x
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Noel, T. W. (1997, October). The effect of ethical frameworks on perceptions of organizational justice. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1190-1207. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/256932
Effective organizations are able to clearly define their ethical expectations by setting high moral standards, writing codes of conduct, and utilizing mentoring programs. “Masters provide your servants with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven” (Col. 4:1). When organizations clearly define their ethical expectations to their subordinates, they are much more likely to treat their customers fairly. Customers who are treated fairly are much more likely to be loyal consumers of the products or services that the company provides. This helps to establish a loyal customer base that a business can depend upon, thus providing a predictable source of annual revenue. If an employer treats their employees with respect, honesty, and with candor they’ll give the customer 110% (Rion, 2001).
Sheppard, B.H., Lewicki, R.J. & Minton, J.W. (1992). Organizational Justice: The Search for Fairness in the Workplace. New York: Lexington Books.
•Equity is studied to determine whether resources are distributed fairly to all members of a society.
As Stadnyk, Townsend & Wilcock (2010) state, occupational justice is based upon the idea that individuals all have different needs, which are expressed through their occupations with the belief that all humans are occupational beings (Stadnyk, 2010). Through this approach, occupational justice or injustices can be seen within the contexts of geographic location, individuals and communities. Based upon moral, ethical and political ideas of justice, occupations are culturally defined and influence participation (Stadnyk, 2010). The framework of occupational justice uses structural and contextual factors to describe occupational outcomes in relation to occupational justice and injustice. Occupational injustice is defined as, “some members of society
Wealth inequality relates to race, gender, and access to health care as there are many wealth and income disparities among these groups of individuals. Justice, efficiency and liberty are the primary moral values when discussing economics and ethics. For example, a free-market system can be efficient because it creates maximizing profits, but can be immoral if it impedes on the liberties of individuals in a society. An economic system that produces an equal distribution of wealth, however, can be immoral as well, if it restricts liberties. Distributive justice, is a term used to describe how goods are apportioned among individuals. There are two fundamental types of distributive justice interpreted by philosophers; procedural justice and end-state distributive justice.
In correlating the scores from the Self-Assessment Exercise located on pages 58-59 of our text book I have discovered that the fairness for which I score my place of work, and the organization for which I work, the highest is in fact Interpersonal Justice; for which my combines score totaled 13 out of a possible 15. This places Interpersonal justice at a very high overall level of perceived justice for me. And I can think of many reason ranging from the broad to the personal, and from the historic to the current, which all could be contributors to my having this perception.
Distributive justice can be described as how goods are allocated in a socially just way in society. There are many different principles of distribution including egalitarian and prioritarian. In this essay I will explain in depth the views of the egalitarian and prioritarian whilst assessing their strengths and weaknesses. I will then go on to conclude that the egalitarian principle of distribution, specifically telic egalitarianism is a more effective theory than the prioritarian principle as although the levelling down objection poses a significant threat to the more extreme forms of egalitarianism, telic egalitarianism is able to overcome the claim that levelling down would not be beneficial in all cases. In extreme egalitarianism cases, it seems as though helping the people most in need would be preferable to levelling everyone down to a worse level, but it can be shown that in many examples this is not the case as levelling down would be better for everyone involved.
“Is justice, equality and fairness really being shown in the modern world?” This is a question that most people ponder about. In reality, these three terms are very closely related, and many wonder if the truth and value of justice, equality and fairness are still upheld in this era. I believe that although it is true that the righteousness of the world has been corrupted by evil, there is still a fragment of peace, harmony and impartiality is still present is some specific cases.
The effective Human Resource Management in an organization requires an exceptional standard set for motivation, job design, reward system and equity. Nowadays, people are more willing to avoid unfair treatment in the workplace than any other aspect. The fundamental concept behind Equity is an attempt to balance what has been put in and taken out at the workplace with a feeling of justice being served. Unconsciously, values are assigned to many various contributions made to the organization, hence causing an air of misbalance in the environment. There has always been a disparity in the view on the desirability or the cost effectiveness of policy measures. The importance of equity or reducing discrimination has gained a lot of attention in the labour market (Milkovich, Newman & Ratnam, 2009).
I discovered how sticking to one’s morals should be the topmost priority for everyone involved in business, whether personal or professional. Regardless of what the consequences may be, the intensity of the problem, and the complexities it may bring, sacrificing one’s integrity should never be an option, as integrity goes hand-in-hand with the morals of an individual (Duggan & Woodhouse, 2011). They further go on to say that having individuals take part in building a code of ethics that supports employee integrity, they will act ethically. Also, I believe that companies should place more emphasis on the moral behavior of their employees, and clear-cut policies should be set regarding such ethical situations. Furthermore, I realized how serving justice while making decisions really helps in the long run, and that opting to go for the ideal rather than they deserved is not always the best option, and could hurt a company in more than one
The Distributive Justice System is known as the “fair share” (Maiese 1). What it means is that it revolves around equity, equality, and need. Equity means that one’s reward should amount to one’s contribution to society. You settle for what you accomplish rather than settling for something less than the work you have completed. Equality is when everyone receives the same amount of reward no matter how much or how little you have accomplished. It benefits those who work less but not to those who contribute the most. Need is unlike the others, no matter how much work you have accomplished, the one’s that require it the most shall receive the reward. Needless to say, you bust your
Michael W. Morris& Kwok Leung, “Justice For All? Progress in Research On Cultural Variation in the Psychology of Distributive and Procedural Justice” Applied Psychology; An International Review, Vol. 49, 1999.
Levy, Paul E. Industrial Organizational Psychology. New York: Worth, 2013. Print. The. Laird, Dugan, Sharon S. Naquin, and Elwood F. Holton.
Of course I looked “justice” up in the dictionary before I started to write this paper and I didn’t find anything of interest except of course a common word in every definition, that being “fair”. This implies that justice would have something to do with being fair. I thought that if one of the things the law and legal system are about is maintaining and promoting justice and a sense of “fairness”, they might not be doing such a spiffy job. An eye for an eye is fair? No, that would be too easy, too black and white. I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those.
Essentially, “justice is the quality of being impartial, fair, and just” (Pollsky, 2012, p.53). Furthermore, the act of being just is derived from the latin word “jus” which translates to matters involving laws or rules (Pollsky, 2012, p.53). There are three types of justice and they each differ in matters of circumstance: firstly, distributive justice attempts to provide equality for each individual; corrective justice attempts to reverse an unfair advantage, provide a remedy to the problem, and show equality within the population; lastly, reciprocal justice provides the notion of equality amongst freely exchanged goods amongst individuals.