Maureen L. Ambrose

Old Friends, New Faces: Motivation Research in the 1990s

This article reports the principal findings of over 200 studies of work motivation published between January 1990 and December 1997. We examined research relevant to seven traditional motivational theories (Motives and Needs, Expectancy Theory, Equity Theory, Goal-Setting, Cognitive Evaluation Theory, Work Design, and Reinforcement Theory) and three emerging topic areas (Creativity, Groups, and Culture). For each area, we summarize the research, identify trends and discuss issues that deserve further research attention. We conclude by examining trends in research in the field overall and considering the implications of these trends for the future role of motivation in organizational behavior research.

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.

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.

Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar questions

Abstract Research on organizational justice has flourished in the last 30 years. During that time, researchers have generally sought to answer three questions: (1) Why do people care about justice? (2) What affects justice judgments? and (3) What outcomes are associated with justice judgments? The papers in this special issue of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes on organizational justice reflect how these three questions are explored in contemporary justice research. This introduction to the special issue considers how the papers represent trends and developments in current justice research. Several themes are identified: the role of justice in a broader model of group engagement, the empirical examination of justice as a moral virtue, the effect of social context on justice judgments, and the darker reactions to injustice. Thus, the special issue provides insight not only to familiar justice questions but also to the evolution of the field and its future direction.

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.

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.

Assessing roadblocks to justice: A model of fair behavior in organizations

Organizational justice research traditionally focuses on individuals’ reactions to how they are treated by others. However, little attention has been given to why individuals choose to behave fairly or unfairly in the first place. Our chapter draws on the literature in ethical decision making (Rest, 1986) to identify five distinct factors that influence an individuals decision to treat others fairly. Using this model as a foundation, and drawing on extant research in justice, we explore five different types of roadblocks to fair behavior. We explore the implications of these roadblocks for organizations concerned with creating and maintaining a fair workplace. Finally, we discuss future research suggested by the five factors and some dilemmas, issues, and caveats relevant to the proposed model.

Perspective and procedural justice: Attorney and litigant evaluations of court procedures

A comparison of the procedural justice judgments of attorneys and those of lay people judging the same procedures offers an opportunity to generate new information on what factors affect judgments of fairness. In a survey of reactions to conventional and innovative procedures in a United States district court, attorneys and lay people involved in tort and contract cases were asked to judge the overall fairness of court procedures and the fairness of specific procedures used in arbitration hearings. The respondents were also asked for their judgments concerning the favorability of the procedures outcome, the opportunity to have the case heard and decided by an impartial third party, and their sides control over what happened in the case, all of which are factors found in previous studies to affect procedural fairness judgments. The results showed that, while attorneys gave higher overall fairness ratings than did litigants, the difference was not affected by the procedure assigned to the case. In addition, attorneys and litigants appeared to use the same standards to evaluate the fairness of procedures, although they disagreed about where the procedures they experienced fell on these dimensions. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.

Drug Testing and Procedural Fairness: The Influence of Situational Variables

This study examines the effect of four variables (i.e., interpersonal treatment, organizational reputation, testing context, and consequence of testing) on perceptions of the procedural fairness of a drug-testing program. Main effects for each of these variables on perceptions of procedural fairness were expected. In addition, interactions were predicted between interpersonal treatment and organizational reputation, testing context and consequence, and testing context and interpersonal treatment. Results generally supported the hypotheses, revealing main effects for the four variables and two significant interactions. The implications of these findings for justice research and the design and implementation of drug-testing programs are discussed.