Making Sense of Procedural Fairness: How High Procedural Fairness Can Reduce or Heighten the Influence of Outcome Favorability

By J. Brockner. 2002

337 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, General Decision Sciences, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9b6a5468bf686e35b7ebf22d78b429d80bb89480

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. Michel Tuan Pham
2. T. Avnet
3. J. Reb
4. Russell S. Cropanzano
5. Barry M. Goldman
6. Laura J. Kray
7. David de Cremer
8. P. Ring

In General Decision Sciences

1. Michel Tuan Pham
2. T. Avnet
3. P. Ring
4. Wei Liu
5. D. van Knippenberg
6. Kathryn M. Bartol
7. Andrew H. Van de Ven
8. Amanuel Tekleab

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Russell S. Cropanzano
2. David de Cremer
3. D. van Knippenberg
4. Michel Tuan Pham
5. Laura J. Kray
6. J. Reb
7. Andrew Li
8. T. Avnet

Citations in the corpus

• Relying on Trust in Cooperative Inter-Organizational Relationships (2006, background): “Although there is an extensive literature dealing with the concepts of fairness/justice (see, e.g. Brockner 2002; Cropanzano and Greenberg 1997; Lind and Tyler 1988), very little work has been done towards integrating it within the literature on the dynamics of IORs.”
• Fairness at the Group Level: Justice Climate and Intraunit Justice Climate (2009, background): “In other words, people care more about the process when the outcome they obtain is not what they would have preferred (for reviews, see Brockner, 2002; Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996).”
• Cooperation with leaders in social dilemmas: On the effects of procedural fairness and outcome favorability in structural cooperation (2003, methodology): “…and noncooperative behavior; cf. Leventhal, 1980), an unfavorable outcome will communicate to group members that they themselves may be responsible for the obtained outcome and therefore will have to change their initial behavior (e.g., increase contributions; see Brockner, 2002; Folger, 1993).”
• Organizational Justice: A Behavioral Science Concept with Critical Implications for Business Ethics and Stakeholder Theory (2005, background): “Support for this normative possibility with instrumental benefits could have come—though the authors did not cite this source—from the organizational justice construct of a “fairness heuristic” (Brockner 2002) in which the perceived distributive, procedural and interactional justice of all other per”
• Linking distributive and procedural justice to employee engagement through social exchange: a field study in India (2013, background): “…fairness of managerial policies and practices, especially HR practices, form the informational source of employees’ perceptions of procedural justice (Kuvaas, 2008), which shapes their cognizance of the various organizational, group, or individual outcomes (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Brockner, 2002).”
• Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional injustice. (2006, methodology): “We used the context of a termination because recent reviews by Brockner (2002) and Brockner and Wiesenfeld (1996) suggest a heightened role of procedural and interactional injustice specifically when outcomes are unfavorable as in the case of a termination.”
• Procedural and distributive justice effects moderated by organizational identification (2005, background): “Recently, it has been argued that because of this relational component of procedural justice, a potential moderator of this interactive effect may be the extent to which employees assign importance to their relationship with the enacting authority and the organization as a whole (Brockner, 2002).”