Thomas M. Tripp

Getting Even or Moving On? Power, Procedural Justice, and Types of Offense as Predictors of Revenge, Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and Avoidance in Organizations

A field study and an experimental study examined relationships among organizational variables and various responses of victims to perceived wrongdoing. Both studies showed that procedural justice climate moderates the effect of organizational variables on the victims revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, or avoidance behaviors. In Study 1, a field study, absolute hierarchical status enhanced forgiveness and reconciliation, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were high; relative hierarchical status increased revenge, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were low. In Study 2, a laboratory experiment, victims were less likely to endorse vengeance or avoidance depending on the type of wrongdoing, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were high.

Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The aesthetics of revenge

Abstract The growing body of research on workplace revenge has focused on morality-based principles (e.g., organizational justice) that people use to judge acts of revenge. By contrast, in the present research, we report findings from two studies that focus on aesthetics-based principles (e.g., the “beauty” of executing the act of revenge) that people use to judge acts of revenge. In Study 1, a qualitative analysis of revenge incidents, we identify altruism, poetic qualities, and symmetry as aesthetic principles that people use to judge acts of revenge. In Study 2, a quantitative analysis of a policy-capturing experiment, we focused on the symmetry principle. Specifically, we examined the influence of the symmetry of method and symmetry of consequences in revenge. In that study, we found that workplace revenge is judged less harshly when consequences are symmetric than when they are asymmetric. However, symmetry has the opposite effect on judgments when it comes to symmetry of methods: similar methods were judged more harshly than dissimilar methods. We discuss the influence of aesthetic principles on judgments about revenge, and whether such principles legitimate or delegitimate an act of revenge.

“Righteous” Anger and Revenge in the Workplace: The Fantasies, the Feuds, the Forgiveness

Revenge is part of the social fabric of organizational life. For many, revenge is typically viewed as an irrational, if not evil, response, to events in the workplace. However, there is an emerging scholarly view of revenge that departs from that conventional wisdom. This view is what we refer to as “revenge as justice.” In this chapter, we review a growing body of research across academic disciplines that finds the motivation for revenge is, more often than not, grounded in a perception that one has been the victim of undeserved harm and feelings of injustice. Drawing on empirical findings, we argue that revenge is not motivated by mere anger grounded in frustration, but a righteous anger, an emotional response to correct and prevent injustice. As such, revenge is central to the process of justice in organizations. While righteous anger is core variable in our analysis, we illustrate how cognitive mistakes and biases can shape the emotion of righteous anger and the act of revenge. Finally, we argue that there is a rationality and morality to revenge, which must be understood through emotional lens of righteous anger.

An empirical test of forgiveness motives' effects on employees' health and well-being.

Two critical-incident studies were conducted to determine what motivates employees to forgive (or reconcile) with coworkers who offend them. Data from the first studys exploratory factor analysis revealed five types of motives for forgiveness: apology, moral, religious, relationship, and lack of alternatives. Data from the second study on a different sample confirmed the five-factor structure, and structural equation modeling demonstrated differential relationships between the five motives and the outcome variables, stress and health. Individuals who claimed to have forgiven because they believed they had no other alternatives, or who forgave because they believed a higher power (religious) required it, were more likely to report greater stress and poorer health. Positive outcomes of forgiveness were discovered for those employees who forgave because they believed it was the right (moral) thing to do. Those who forgave for moral reasons reported less stress than those who forgave because they believed they had no other choice or because a higher power demanded it. Forgiving for relationship and apology reasons was not significantly related to either stress or general health. Future research directions are discussed.

Discrepant Values and Measures of Negotiator Performance

The thesis of the paper is that measuring negotiator performance correctly is difficult because the values that those of us who measure negotiator performance think negotiators are maximizing may differ from the values negotiators are actually maximizing. When such discrepant values exist, using performance measures that do not account for them can lead easily to incorrect conclusions about negotiator performance. Indeed, good performance may be judged poor, and vice-versa. This paper explores several related literatures, including the experimental-bargaining, behavioral-decision-making, and procedural-justice literatures, to demonstrate that discrepant values exist. It then demonstrates that whenever performance measures are used as dependent variables in negotiation experiments, the existence of discrepant values can lead to both Type I and Type II construct-validity errors.

Is outcome fairness used to make procedural fairness judgments when procedural information is inaccessible

In a study of relocation decisions at seven different sites, procedural fairness was shown to be more sensitive to outcome fairness when respondents had less time to gather information about decision procedures. We interpret this finding to show that inaccessibility of information about decision procedures moderates the influence of outcome fairness judgments on procedural fairness judgments, such that outcome recipients rely more heavily on outcome fairness as a basis for forming procedural fairness judgments when information about decision procedures is not available. A second, laboratory study is reported that confirms the information inaccessibility explanation in the first study. When procedural information is available, procedural characteristics may be the primary bases for procedural fairness judgments, but when such information is unavailable, procedural fairness will likely be more sensitive to self-interest concerns. Future research should therefore take contextual factors such as accessibility to procedural information into account, given that there are likely to be differences on that dimension between organizational settings on the one hand and legal, political, and dispute resolution settings on the other. Information about decision procedures, generally accessible in legal, political, and dispute resolution settings, is often much less accessible in organizations.

A Systems Perspective on Forgiveness in Organizations

AbstractDespite the widespread interest in forgiveness across a diversity of disciplines, the study of forgiveness has been strongly influenced by a psychological (i.e. individual-level) approach. Although this has provided many fruitful insights, it has also resulted in a fragmented literature that has underemphasized the multilevel and contextual nature of this phenomenon. Drawing upon a broad multidisciplinary approach, we provide a singular definition of forgiveness and integrate research on forgiveness into a multilevel systems approach. In doing so, we demonstrate that a deeper understanding can be realized by conceptualizing forgiveness as a part of a system of interconnecting psychological, social, structural, and cultural relations. By embedding forgiveness into context, our systems perspective provides novel insights into the factors that facilitate and constrain forgiveness at multiple levels of analysis, how the interplay between contextual levels can shape forgiveness at lower levels (e.g. in...

Followers’ reactions to self-serving leaders: the influence of the organization's budget policy

Purpose - – Even though leaders often are seen as responsible guides, they sometimes behave in a self-serving way, for example, by spending the companys budget on their own, frivolous needs. In this study, the authors explore an aspect of such behavior: the authors examine how an organizational budget policy makes such spending more legitimate in the eyes of followers. Specifically, the authors examine when followers will react to a leaders self-serving behavior as a function of: the role of organizational budget policies, and whether followers are directly affected by the leaders behavior. The authors test two particular budget policies, i.e. carry-forward vs non-carry-forward (a.k.a., “use-it-or-lose-it” budget policies), which differ on whether a department/teams allocations not spent by the end of the fiscal year flow back to the central administration. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - – Study 1 is a multi-source field study that should enhance the external validity of the results. Study 1 was analyzed with regression analyses and bootstrapping techniques. To be able to draw causal inferences, the authors also conducted an experimental study (Study 2). Findings - – Followers react more negatively – by showing increased turnover intentions and decreased commitment and cooperation – to a leaders self-serving behavior in a carry-forward policy than in a use-it-or-lose-it budget policy. Thus, organizational policies, such as the budget policy, affect how followers react to self-serving leaders. Originality/value - – The authors focus on self-serving leader behavior. The authors show that followers’ reactions to self-serving leaders are not necessarily negative and are influenced by the specific organizational context in which the self-serving behavior occurs. More specifically, the authors add to the literature by introducing budget policies as influencing followers’ reactions to leaders’ behavior.

Employee-initiated defamation lawsuits: Organizational responses and dilemmas

The fast-growing category of defamation lawsuits in the United States involves actions by employees against their employers. Over the last decade, the courts have increasingly ruled in favor of the employee plaintiffs, thus creating an employees right to reputation. This article identifies a variety of responses undertaken by organizations to reduce their legal liability and lessen the likelihood of employee defamation lawsuits. We argue that while organizational actions to reduce their legal liability may appear “rational,” such responses may also be creating situations in which employers, employees, and the public may be the unintended victims of a “law without justice.” The article concludes with a discussion of balancing the freedom necessary for managers to communicate about employees and the fairness of that communication.

The Fair Process Effect in the Classroom: Reducing the Influence of Grades on Student Evaluations of Teachers

Research findings tend to confirm anecdotal observations that instructors’ teaching evaluations are influenced by students’ grades, making some instructors feel pressured to reduce the academic rigor of their course in an attempt to get higher evaluations. To reduce this pressure, the current study tested whether distributive justice may explain the relationship between grades and student evaluation of teaching (SET) and how the fair process effect may moderate the relationship between distributive justice perceptions regarding grades and SET. Relying on the extant literature of procedural justice, we hypothesized that when students perceive no fair process that determines their grades, then: (a) the relationship between distributive justice perceptions and SET will be stronger and (b) the indirect effect of grades on SET via distributive justice perceptions will be stronger. Conversely, under conditions of strong fair process perceptions, these relationships will be attenuated. Using a survey of undergraduates’ perceptions of course fairness, we found support for our proposed hypotheses. We discuss the implications of our findings for higher education faculty.