Justice in Teams: The Context Sensitivity of Justice Rules Across Individual and Team Contexts1

112 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Group Cohesion as an Enhancement to the Justice—Affective Commitment Relationship (2008, background): “Research suggests that the benefits of group cohesion extend beyond satisfaction with one’s immediate work group to organizationally directed attitudes and that team contexts enhance the importance of justice perceptions (Colquitt & Jackson, 2006).”
Understanding the Disparate Behavioral Consequences of LMX Differentiation: The Role of Social Comparison Emotions (2018, background): “Second, equity (versus equality or need) tends to be the dominant basis of justice used in organizations (Bierhoff, Cohen, & Greenberg, 1986; Cohen, 1987; Colquitt & Jackson, 2006) as well as in measures of justice (e.g., Colquitt, 2001).”
Individual Swift Trust and Knowledge-Based Trust in Face-to-Face and Virtual Team Members (2009, unknown): “Vignettes have been used in numerous studies of trust (e.g., [20, 40, 102]) and in the study of collaboration (e.g., [3, 28, 62]).”
The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes (2010, methodology): “In our model, member entitlement placement as a configural aspect is part of the group context (Colquitt & Jackson, 2006; Kirkman et al., 2004), and an important component of the explanation of why groups with objective faultlines will have members who actually perceive these faultlines.”