Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness present in decision making process with regard to the distribution of rewards (Lemons & Jones, 2001) .
What term refers to the perceived fairness in the manner of determining an outcome?
Distributive Justice. Definition. -The perceived fairness of how outcomes are distributed.-
What term refers to the perceived fairness of the amount of information given by the makers of the decision affected by the decision and the explanations received during the making of the decision?
What term refers to the perceived fairness of the amount of information given by the makers of the decision affected by the decision and the explanations received during the making of the decision? … Distributive justice is conceptualized as the fairness associated with decision outcomes and distribution of resources.
What do you call perceived fairness in the process by which a decision is reached?
Distributive Justice. the perceived fairness of the outcomes reached through formal procedures and decision making.
What are the 3 types of organizational justice?
Organizational justice consists of three main forms – distributive, procedural, and interactional.
How many types of fairness are there?
Fairness perception is multidimensional; the research literature distinguishes between two major categories of fairness: outcome fairness (or distributive justice) and process fairness (or procedural justice). Outcome fairness refers to the extent to which we perceive that the distributions of outcomes are fair.
Which of the following statements are consistent with Locke and Latham’s findings about goal setting?
Which of the following statements are consistent with Locke and Latham’s findings about goal setting? … Goals that are specific and difficult lead to higher performance. People need the ability and resources to achieve the goal.
What is the primary focus of a merit pay system?
Merit pay directly links an employee’s individual effort and ambition to a reward. It encourages employees to meet and exceed company goals, which increases the company’s bottom line. It can also work towards fostering a strong, highly productive workforce with a high rate of employee retention.
What are the three types of fairness at work?
- Distributive. This relates to equity versus equality in rewards. …
- Procedural. This relates to a fair or consistent reward process. …
- Interactional. This relates to the need for interactions that reinforce what the employee observes.
What are the two kinds of justice?
Aristotle divides justice – understood as fairness in individuals’ shares – into two forms, distributive and corrective.
What is procedural fairness in law?
14.11 ‘Procedural fairness’ means acting fairly in administrative decision making. It relates to the fairness of the procedure by which a decision is made, and not the fairness in a substantive sense of that decision. … if such a duty exists, the content of procedural fairness in the particular case.
What are the 4 types of justice?
This article points out that there are four different types of justice: distributive (determining who gets what), procedural (determining how fairly people are treated), retributive (based on punishment for wrong-doing) and restorative (which tries to restore relationships to “rightness.”) All four of these are …
What are the 4 characteristics of justice?
The 4 types of justice: commutative, distributive, legal, and social.
What are the two main components of organizational justice?
Procedural justice and distributive justice.
What is an example of procedural fairness?
They mainly apply to decisions that negatively affect an existing interest of a person or corporation. For instance, procedural fairness would apply to a decision to cancel a licence or benefit; to discipline an employee; to impose a penalty; or to publish a report that may damage a person’s reputation.
What are these forms of fairness?
Explore alternatives based on each of the three forms of fairness: procedural, equal distribution, or proportional distribution.
journal article
The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice PerspectiveThe Academy of Management Review
Vol. 18, No. 4 (Oct., 1993)
, pp. 694-734 (41 pages)
Published By: Academy of Management
//doi.org/10.2307/258595
//www.jstor.org/stable/258595
Read and download
Log in through your school or library
Alternate access options
For independent researchers
Read Online
Read 100 articles/month free
Subscribe to JPASS
Unlimited reading + 10 downloads
Purchase article
$29.00 - Download now and later
Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free.
Get StartedAlready have an account? Log in
Monthly Plan
- Access everything in the JPASS collection
- Read the full-text of every article
- Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep
Yearly Plan
- Access everything in the JPASS collection
- Read the full-text of every article
- Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep
Purchase a PDF
Purchase this article for $29.00 USD.
How does it work?
- Select the purchase option.
- Check out using a credit card or bank account with PayPal .
- Read your article online and download the PDF from your email or your account.
Abstract
A justice model of applicants' reactions to employment-selection systems is proposed as a basis for organizing previous findings and guiding future research. Organizational justice literature is briefly reviewed, and key findings are used to provide a framework for the proposed model and to support hypotheses. The procedural justice of selection systems is examined in terms of 10 procedural rules, wherein the satisfaction and violation of these rules provide the basis for fairness reactions. Distributive justice of hiring decisions is examined with respect to equity, equality, and needs. The model also includes the interaction of procedural and distributive justice and the relationship of fairness reactions to individual and organizational outcomes.
Journal Information
The Academy of Management Review, now in its 26th year, is the most cited of management references. AMR ranks as one of the most influential business journals, publishing academically rigorous, conceptual papers that advance the science and practice of management. AMR is a theory development journal for management and organization scholars around the world. AMR publishes novel, insightful and carefully crafted conceptual articles that challenge conventional wisdom concerning all aspects of organizations and their role in society. The journal is open to a variety of perspectives, including those that seek to improve the effectiveness of, as well as those critical of, management and organizations. Each manuscript published in AMR must provide new theoretical insights that can advance our understanding of management and organizations. Most articles include a review of relevant literature as well. AMR is published four times a year with a circulation of 15,000.
Publisher Information
The Academy of Management (the Academy; AOM) is a leading professional association for scholars dedicated to creating and disseminating knowledge about management and organizations. The Academy's central mission is to enhance the profession of management by advancing the scholarship of management and enriching the professional development of its members. The Academy is also committed to shaping the future of management research and education. Founded in 1936, the Academy of Management is the oldest and largest scholarly management association in the world. Today, the Academy is the professional home for more than 18290 members from 103 nations. Membership in the Academy is open to all individuals who find value in belonging.
Rights & Usage
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
The Academy of Management Review © 1993 Academy of Management
Request Permissions