Skip to main content
Log in

Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace

Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The interrelatedness of procedural and distributive justice has implications for organizational practice, especially in the area of performance appraisal. I explore these implications by first describing how procedures can influence perceptions of distributive justice: Procedural improprieties can bring to mind the possibility that a more just outcome might have been obtained if only more acceptable practices had been followed. Next I discuss a second form of interrelatedness — how distributive consequences can influence perceptions of procedural justice — by suggesting that the fairness of a procedure can be assessed in terms of its “expected-value” (typical or most probable) outcome. These points are illustrated by a discussion of howvoice, or the opportunity for employees to contribute information during the performance appraisal process, can affect both appraisal accuracy and perception of fairness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, pp. 267–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dipboye, R. L., and de Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems.J. Appl. Psychol. 66: 248–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (1986a). A referent cognitions theory of relative deprivation. In Olson, J. M., Herman, C. P., and Zanna, M. P. (eds.),Relative Deprivation and Social Comparison: The Ontario symposium, Vol. 4, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (1986b). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In Bierhoff, H. W., Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (eds.),Justice in Social Relations Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In Master, J. C., and Smith, W. P. (eds.),Social Comparison, Social Justice, and Relative Deprivation: Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Perspectives Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., and Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personal systems. In Rowland, K. M., and Ferris, G. R. (eds.),Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 141–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., and Martin, C. (1986). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice effects.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22: 531–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., Rheaume, K., and Martin, C. (1983a). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19: 172–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., and Robinson, T. (1983b). Relative deprivation and procedural justification.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45: 268–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1986). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair? In Lewicki, R. J., Bazerman, M. H., and Sheppard, B. H. (eds.),Research on Negotiating in Organizations JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (in press). The distributive justice of organizational performance appraisals. In Bierhoff, H. W., Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (eds.),Justice in Social Relations, Plenum Press, New York.

  • Greenberg, J., and Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In Paulus, P. B. (ed.),Basic Group Processes Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 235–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., Mark, M. M., and Lehman, D. R. (1985). Justice in sports and games.J. Sport Behav. 8: 18–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., and Feldman, J. M. (1983). Performance appraisal: A process focus. In Staw, B. M., and Cummings, L. L. (eds.),Research in Organizational Behavior Vol. 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 141–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., and Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In Jones, E. E.,et al. (eds.),Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ: pp. 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1982). Availability and the simulation heuristic. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (eds.)Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 201–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanfer, R., Sawyer, J., Early, C., and Lind, E. A. (1987). Fairness and participation in evaluation procedures: Effects on task attitudes and performance.Soc. Justice Res. 1: 235–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., and Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accurace of performance evaluation.J. Appl. Psychol. 63: 751–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landy, F. J., Barnes-Farrell, J., and Cleveland, J. N. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up.J. Appl. Psychol. 65: 355–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Gergen, K. J., Greenberg, M. S., and Willis, R. H. (eds.),Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research Plenum Press, New York, pp. 27–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissak, R. I. (1983).Procedural Fairness: How Employees Evaluate Procedures. Unpublished dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauly, M. V., and Willett, T. D. (1968). Who “should” bear the burden of national defense? In Miller, J. C. (ed.),Why the Draft? The Case for a Volunteer Army Penguin Book, Baltimore, pp. 58–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauly, M. V., and Willett, T. D. (1972). Two concepts of equity and their implications for public policy.Soc. Sci. Quart. 53: 8–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, B. H. (1984). Third party conflict intervention: A procedural framework. In B. M. Staw, and Cummings, L. L. (eds.),Research in Organizational Behavior JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 141–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., and Walker, L. (1975).Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., and Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure.Calif. Law Rev. 66: 541–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendants' evaluations of their courtroom experience.Law Soc. Rev. 18: 101–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D. (1982). The actor and the observer: How are their perceptions of causality divergent?Psychol. Bull. 92: 682–700.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Folger, R. Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace. Soc Just Res 1, 143–159 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048013

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048013

Key words

Navigation