Are Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice Conceptually Distinct

By R. Bies. 2005

320 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Economics and Econometrics, Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f3f5aaa58c13e602f0197845f84b714825df4341

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Economics and Econometrics

In Law

Citations in the corpus

Interactional justice, leader–member exchange, and employee performance: Examining the moderating role of justice differentiation (2017, methodology): “Therefore, Bies (2005) conceptualized interactional justice as an encounter-based perception of leader fairness and regarded it as a central component of the process of leadership itself.”
Measuring public perceptions of the police (2010, background): “Interactional justice refers to the perceived fairness and quality of the interpersonal interaction between a decision maker and the individuals affected by the decision (e.g. Bies, 2005; Bies and Moag, 1986; Brockner and Greenberg, 1990)[3].”
Organizational Justice and Behavioral Ethics: Promises and Prospects (2009, background): “Later, Bies (1987) expanded these ideas, arguing that it was also important for organizations to share information and provide adequate explanations regarding important decisions (Bobocel, McCline, & Folger, 1997; Sitkin & Bies, 1993; Sitkin, Sutcliffe, & Reed, 1993).”
Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional injustice. (2006, background): “In other words, aggrieved workers are often motivated to see the perpetrator suffer, which can lead to revengeful behaviors, even at the expense of one’s own instrumental benefit (Bies & Tripp, 1996; Bies et al., 1997; Goldman, 2003; Turillo, et al., 2002). The retaliation is driven by a sense of et”
Linking distributive and procedural justice to employee engagement through social exchange: a field study in India (2013, background): “Employees who feel that their organizational decision-making and other related processes are impartial and nondiscriminatory will be motivated to comply with organizational requests and requirements (Bies, 2005).”
Social Exchange Theory: A Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies (2017, background): “To illustrate, consider the consequences when a destructive leader (Schyns & Schilling, 2013) engages in abusive supervision (Mackey et al., in press; Tepper, 2007) or interpersonal injustice (Bies, 2001; 2005; 2015).”
Leadership and fairness: The state of the art (2006, background): “Indeed, it seems that somewhere ‘‘justice got ‘lost’ in more recent models of leadership’’ (Bies, 2005, p. 105).”
Fairness at the Group Level: Justice Climate and Intraunit Justice Climate (2009, background): “Interactional justice concerns the fairness of the interpersonal treatment one receives from others (e.g., Bies, 2001, 2005; Bies & Moag, 1986).”
When Leaders Fail to “Walk the Talk” (2015, background): “…most research on interpersonal justice has focused on subordinates’ perceptions of whether their supervisors treat them with dignity and respect (Bies, 2005; Colquitt, 2001), subordinates may also perceive that their supervisors expect them to treat other people in an interpersonally fair…”
The role of justice and social exchange relationships in workplace deviance: Test of a mediated model (2010, background): “…et al., 2008), we posit that supervisors are key social agents because they are largely involved in the everyday encounters that employees use to create their justice and exchange relationship perceptions and are held accountable (by the organization) for their employees’ behavior (Bies, 2005).”
When does procedural fairness promote organizational citizenship behavior? Integrating empowering leadership types in relational justice models (2012, background): “…address the procedural fairness – OCB relationship, it is surprising that we know virtually nothing about how leaders should coordinate procedural fairness with other elements of their leadership style to stimulate this important employee behavior (cf. Bies, 2005; van Knippenberg et al., 2007).”