nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

01.06.2014

Righting the Wrong for Third Parties: How Monetary Compensation, Procedure Changes and Apologies Can Restore Justice for Observers of Injustice

verfasst von: Natàlia Cugueró-Escofet, Marion Fortin, Miguel-Angel Canela

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 2/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

People react negatively not only to injustices they personally endure but also to injustices that they observe as bystanders at work—and typically, people observe more injustices than they personally experience. It is therefore important to understand how organizations can restore observers’ perceptions of justice after an injustice has occurred. In our paper, we employ a policy capturing design to test and compare the restorative power of monetary compensation, procedure changes and apologies, alone and in combination, from the perspective of third parties. We extend previous research on remedies by including different degrees of compensation and procedural changes, by comparing the effects of sincere versus insincere apologies and by including apologies from additional sources. The results indicate that monetary compensation, procedure changes, and sincere apologies all have a significant and positive effect on how observers perceive the restoration of justice. Insincere apologies, on the other hand, have no significant effect on restoration for third parties. Procedural changes were found to have the strongest remedial effects, a remedy rarely included in previous research. One interpretation of this finding could be that observers of injustice prefer solutions that are not short sighted: changing procedures avoids future injustices that could affect other people. We found that combinations of remedies, such that the presence of a second remedy strengthens the effect of the first remedy, are particularly effective. Our findings regarding interactions underline the importance of studying and administering remedies in conjunction with each other.

Vorheriger Artikel The United Nations Global Compact: What Did It Promise?

Nächster Artikel Odd Jobs, Bad Habits, and Ethical Implications: Smoking-Related Outcomes of Children’s Early Employment Intensity

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nationalities present in our study were: Spanish, French, North American, Brazilian, Chinese, Bulgarian, Egyptian, Greek, German, Italian, Chilean, Nigerian, Malaysian, British, Ugandan, Indian, Filipino, Armenian, Thai, Ghanaian and Jordanian.

Previous studies have typically linked specific remedies to specific injustice types. For example, monetary compensation to procedural injustices (Reb et al. 2006), and apologies to interactional injustice (Wenzel and Okimoto 2010). Yet typical injustice incidents in the workplace involve several injustice dimensions at the same time. Often, a negative outcome is linked to a flaw in the procedure (Folger 2001a), and interactional injustices occur often when communicating negative outcomes (Folger and Skarlicki 2001). Furthermore, negative behavior is typically triggered after several injustices occur, not a single one (Cropanzano et al. 2001). This view is supported by recent studies on the mediating role of overall justice perceptions—it seems to be people’s overall sense of fairness rather than their experience with any particular dimension of fairness that drives their behavior (Ambrose and Schminke 2009; Holtz and Harold 2009). We have therefore used more holistic injustice experience as the basis of our study, in order to better capture a typical situation that people may hear about in their organization.

We have chosen a direct manipulation for apologies because, from a third party perspective, what is reported by others is usually a summary and interpretation of what happened, rather than a description of all of the cues that might make one suspect the apology was sincere or insincere.

In an exploratory analysis of participants’ suggestions regarding remedies for the case presented here, only two (out of 60) participants suggested punishment as a remedy. In the situation in which top management is the source, no one suggested punishment, indicating that punishment appears unrealistic in this situation. Therefore, we decided to focus on other remedies (apologies, procedure changes, compensation) instead.

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.CrossRef

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

Aiman-Smith, L., Scullen, S. E., & Barr, S. H. (2002). Conducting studies of decision making in organizational contexts: A tutorial for policy-capturing and other regression-based techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 388–414.CrossRef

Ambrose, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 491–500.CrossRef

Baron, R. A. (1988). Attributions and organizational conflict: The mediating role of apparent sincerity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 111–127.CrossRef

Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 742–753.

Blader, S., & Tyler, R. (2003). What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 107–126.CrossRef

Blader, S. L., Wiesenfeld, B. M., Fortin, M., & Wheeler-Smith, S. L. (2013). Fairness lies in the heart of the beholder: How the social emotions of third parties influence reactions to injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 62–80.CrossRef

Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13(5), 497–513.CrossRef

Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decision: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.CrossRef

Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2010). Microeconometrics using. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Cobb, A. T., Folger, R., & Wooten, K. (1995). The role justice plays in organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 19(2), 135–151.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.CrossRef

Cojuharenco, I., Patient, D., & Bashshur, M. (2011). Seeing the “forest” or the “trees” of organizational justice: Effects of temporal perspective on employee concerns about unfair treatment at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 17–31.CrossRef

Conlon, D. E., Meyer, C. J., & Nowakowski, J. M. (2005). How does organizational justice affect performance, withdrawal and counterproductive behavior? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice. Nahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cooksey, R. W. (1996). Judgment analysis: Theory, methods and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, R., & Rupp, D. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164–209.CrossRef

Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B. M., & Folger, R. (2003). Deontic Justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 985–991.CrossRef

De Cremer, D. (2010). To pay or to apologize? On the psychology of dealing with unfair offers in a dictator game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(6), 843–848.CrossRef

Dirks, K. T., Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., & Cooper, C. D. (2011). Understanding the effects of substantive responses on trust following. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(2), 87–103.CrossRef

Eaton, J., Santelli, A. G., & Struthers, W. C. (2009). Fit to forgive: Exploring the interaction between regulatory focus, repentance, and forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 381–394.CrossRef

Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 63–87.CrossRef

Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137–140.CrossRef

Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Folger, R. (2001a). The commonality between distributive, procedural and interactional justice. In D. D. S. Stephen Gilliland & Daniel. Skarlicki (Eds.), Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Folger, R. (2001b). Fairness as deonance. In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 3–34). Greenwich, CT: IAP.

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. M. (2005). What is the relationship between justice and morality? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 215–245). Nahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Folger, R., & Salvador, R. (2008). Is management theory too “Self-ish”. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1127–1151.CrossRef

Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2001). Fairness as dependent variable: Why though times can lead to bad management. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace. New York: Routledge.

Graham, M. E., & Cable, D. M. (2001). Consideration of the incomplete block design for policy-capturing research. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 26–45.CrossRef

Greenberg, J. (1990). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 111–157.

Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2009). Fair today, fair tomorrow? A longitudinal investigation of overall justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1185–1199.CrossRef

Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. J. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 261–271.CrossRef

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lind, E. A., Kray, L. J., & Thompson, L. (1998). The social construction of injustices: Fairness judgments in response to own and others’ unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 1–22.CrossRef

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

Nadisic, T. (2008). The Robin Hood effect. Antecendents and consequences of managers using invisible remedies to correct workplace injustice. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Justice, morality and social responsibility (pp. 125–153). Greenwich: IAP.

Nelissen, R. M. A., & Zeelenberg, M. (2009). Moral emotions as determinants of third-party punishment: Anger, guilt, and the functions of altruistic sanctions. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(7), 543–553.

Okimoto, T. G. (2008). Outcomes as affirmation of membership value: Monetary compensation as an administrative response to procedural injustice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1270–1282.CrossRef

Okimoto, T. G., & Tyler, A. T. R. (2007). Is compensation enough? Relational concerns in responding to unintended inequity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relationships, 10(3), 399–420.CrossRef

Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2009). Punishment as restoration of group and offender values following a transgression: Value consensus through symbolic labelling and offender reform. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3), 346–367.CrossRef

O’Malley, M. N., & Greenberg, J. (1983). Sex differences in restoring justice: The down payment effect. Journal of Reserach in personality, 17(2), 174–185.CrossRef

Patient, D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). Increasing interpersonal and informational justice when communicating negative news: The role of the manager’s empathic concern and moral development. Journal of Management, 36(2), 555–578.

Reb, J., Goldman, B. M., Kray, L. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2006). Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional injustice. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 31–64.CrossRef

Rossi, P. H., & Anderson, A. B. (1982). The factorial survey approach: An introduction. In P. H. Rossi & S. L. Nock (Eds.), Measuring social judgments: A factorial survey approach. Berverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Russell, C. J., & Sell, M. V. (2012). A closer look at decisions to quit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 125–137.CrossRef

Schminke, M., & Ambrose, M. L. (1997). The effect of ethical frameworks on perceptions of organizational justice. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1190–1207.CrossRef

Shapiro, D. L. (1991). The effects of explanations on negative reactions to deceit. Administative Science Quarterly, 36, 614–630.CrossRef

Skarlicki, D. P., Ellard, J. H., & Kelln, B. R. C. (1998). Third party perceptions of lay-off: Procedural, derogation, and retributive aspects of justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 119–127.CrossRef

Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Gee, J. (2004). When social accounts backfire: The exacerbating effects of a polite message or an apology on reactions to an unfair outcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 322–341.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. (2005). Third parties’ reaction to employee mistreatment: A justice perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 183–229.CrossRef

Tedeschi, J., & Reiss, M. (1981). Verbal strategies in impression management. In C. Antaki (Ed.), The psychology of ordinary explanations of social behavior. London: Academic Press.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The road to reconciliation: Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise. Journal of Management, 30(2), 165–187.CrossRef

Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. The Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 85–104.CrossRef

Tucker, S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Reid, E., & Elving, C. (2006). Apologies and transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(2), 195–207.CrossRef

Turillo, C. J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J. J., Umphress, E., & Gee, J. (2002). Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 839–865.CrossRef

Wenzel, M., & Okimoto, T. G. (2010). How acts of forgiveness restore a sense of justice: Addressing status/power and value concerns raised by transgressions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), 401–417.

Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32(5), 375–389.CrossRef

Titel: Righting the Wrong for Third Parties: How Monetary Compensation, Procedure Changes and Apologies Can Restore Justice for Observers of Injustice
verfasst von: Natàlia Cugueró-Escofet
Marion Fortin
Miguel-Angel Canela
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2014
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1762-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2014

Global Sustainability Governance and the UN Global Compact: A Rejoinder to Critics

Global Governance: CSR and the Role of the UN Global Compact

Ethical and Unethical Leadership: A Cross-Cultural and Cross-Sectoral Analysis

Why Sparing the Rod Does Not Spoil the Child: A Critique of the “Strict Father” Model in Transnational Governance

Societal-Level Versus Individual-Level Predictions of Ethical Behavior: A 48-Society Study of Collectivism and Individualism

United Nations Global Compact: The Promise–Performance Gap