Marshall Schminke

Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice

This study examines the relationship between injustice and workplace sabotage. Drawing on the organizational justice and workplace deviance literatures, we hypothesize that injustice will be the most common cause of sabotage, and that the source of injustice will influence the goal, target, and severity of sabotage behavior. The results generally support our hypotheses. First, injustice was the most common cause of sabotage. Second, when the source of injustice was interactional, individuals were more likely to engage in retaliation, and when the source of injustice was distributive, individuals were more likely to engage in equity restoration. Third, the source of injustice and the target of sabotage were generally the same, although this relationship was stronger for organizational targets than for individual targets. Finally, there was an additive effect of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on the severity of sabotage. We discuss the implications of these results for future research on sabotage and deviant workplace behavior.

The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: a test of mediation.

Organizational justice research traditionally focuses on the unique predictability of different types of justice (distributive, procedural, and interactional) and the relative importance of these types of justice on outcome variables. Recently, researchers have suggested shifting from this focus on specific types of justice to a consideration of overall justice. The authors hypothesize that overall justice judgments mediate the relationship between specific justice facets and outcomes. They present 2 studies to test this hypothesis. Study 1 demonstrates that overall justice judgments mediate the relationship between specific justice judgments and employee attitudes. Study 2 demonstrates the mediating relationship holds for supervisor ratings of employee behavior. Implications for research on organizational justice are discussed.

Three roads to organizational justice

In this paper, we review current theoretical thinking about organizational justice. We contend that there are three major perspectives for understanding why justice perceptions predict work-relevant criteria: (a) an instrumental approach which emphasizes gains and losses, (b) an inter-personal approach which emphasizes the nature of the relationships among individuals and organizations, and (c) a moral principles approach which emphasizes commitment to ethical standards. We review each of these perspectives, identify the many conceptual frameworks that underlie each approach, and describe both common themes and gaps that exist between the three approaches.

Assembling Fragments Into a Lens: A Review, Critique, and Proposed Research Agenda for the Organizational Work Climate Literature:

Work climates exert an important influence on organizations and the people who work in them. For more than half a century, scholars have sought to understand their antecedents and consequences. However, in recent years, this literature has become fragmented and somewhat adrift. This article attempts to remedy this by reviewing existing research related to organizational work climates and providing a review and critique of the current state of knowledge. Furthermore, the authors seek to assemble the individual pieces into a unified lens capable of identifying overarching themes and challenges facing researchers. Finally, the authors turn this lens to the future, so as to provide a clearer view of some promising avenues for research opportunities and potential for reintegrating the field.

The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness

This study explored the relationship between 3 dimensions of organizational structure--centralization, formalization, and size--and perceptions of procedural and interactional fairness. Data from 11 organizations (N = 209) indicated that, as predicted, centralization was negatively related to perceptions of procedural fairness, and organizational size was negatively related to interactional fairness. However, contrary to predictions, formalization was not related to perceptions of procedural fairness. Results suggest that organizational structure and design should play a more prominent role in our thinking about organizational fairness.

Organization structure and fairness perceptions: The moderating effects of organizational level

Abstract This research explores the relationship between organizational structure and fairness perceptions. We hypothesized that several dimensions of organizational structure (centralization, formalization, size, and vertical complexity) would influence perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional fairness. Further, drawing on social exchange theory, we predict that organizational level will moderate the relationships between structure and fairness perceptions. In particular, we predicted that the effects of structure on justice perceptions would be stronger for individuals at lower organizational levels and weaker for those at higher levels. Results from a sample of 212 participants from 45 departments across 35 work organizations generally supported our predictions. Organizational structure—in particular centralization and formalization—exerted main effects on perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Organizational level was negatively related to both distributive and procedural justice. Finally, as hypothesized, organizational level moderated several of the relationships between structural dimensions and the three types of justice.

The Effect of Ethical Frameworks on Perceptions of Organizational Justice

issues. The implications of these results for both organizational justice and ethics are discussed. Organizational justice and normative ethics both address the general organizational question, What is right? Work in the field of organizational justice has centered around how people feel about either the distribution of outcomes (distributive justice) or the process by which these outcome allocation decisions are made (procedural justice). Ethics research has often considered a similar distinction people draw between processes and outcomes as they attempt to determine what is ethical. One such approach distinguishes between utilitarian (outcome-based) decisions and formalist (rules- or process-based) decisions. These similar distinctions between processes and outcomes in organizational justice and ethics are notable, and in this research note we attempt to integrate the two areas.

Leadership and ethics in work groups - A longitudinal assessment

This study explored the relationship between leadership style and individual ethics in work groups. We present a model of how active leadership affects conformity in members’ ethical decision frameworks (formalism and utilitarianism). We tested this model by examining 36 work groups over a 12-week period. Results supported the hypothesis that more active leadership would lead to greater conformity in both types of ethical frameworks. A second hypothesis, that group cohesion would mediate this relationship between leadership style and ethical conformity, was partially supported. Implications of these findings for leadership, groups, and ethics research are discussed.

The Ethical Climate and Context of Organizations: A Comprehensive Model

Traditional approaches to understanding the ethical context of organizations often focus on ethical work climate, which reflects the collective moral reasoning of organization members. However, such approaches overlook other components of the ethical environment that may influence how ethical judgments translate to ethical behavior. This study extends our understanding of the ethical context of organizations by considering how three distinct aspects of that context—collective moral reasoning ethical climate, collective moral emotion, and collective ethical efficacy—interact to influence ethical behavior. Results from 117 work units support our hypotheses. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Examining Justice Climate: Issues of Fit, Simplicity, and Content

The chapter by Rupp, Bashur, and Liao (in this volume) is rich with ideas for the study of a justice climate. This comment on their chapter focuses on three areas that flow from their presentation: issues in modeling climate strength, complexity and simplicity in conceptualizing a justice climate, and an alternative conceptualization of a justice climate. Specifically, it describes how polynomial regression and response surface methodology may assist researchers in examining climate fit. The comment also describes the benefits of a simplified view of a justice climate – one focusing on the overall justice climate. Finally, it develops a framework for examining a climate for justice – a climate that promotes fair behavior in organizations.