The Journey of Justice: Recounting Milestones over the Past Six Decades

Abstract

Organizational justice has come a long way in the last six decades. Through the 1950s until the 2000s, it diverged from being a single-dimensional construct (distributive justice) to a four-dimensional construct (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice). However, by the mid-1980s, it again started moving towards convergence in the form of integrative and overall justice. This article provides a comprehensive timeline review of major historical milestones in this interesting journey of justice. It chronicles the relevant theories, evolution of various forms of justice, debates, discussions and disagreements related to the construct and the various measurement approaches used to operationalize it at different points of time. It ends by discussing the questions raised by researchers on the validity of the construct in the present era and what new paths lay ahead in the journey of justice.

Keywords

Distributive justice integrative justice interactional justice procedural justice organizational justice overall justice

Introduction

Organizational justice refers to employees’ perception of fairness in the organizational work systems and workplace relationships and is the ‘first virtue of social institutions’ (Rawls, 1971, p. 3). It is instrumental in building a sustainable and high-performing organizational culture by acting as a strong predictor of workplace attitudes and behaviours (Aryee, Walumbwa, Mondejar, & Chu, 2015; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Cropanzano, Bowen, and Gilliland (2007, p. 34) describe it as the ‘glue’ that binds employees together and injustice as a ‘corrosive solvent’ that is detrimental to organizations. Integral to the existence of any organization, the concept has hold on to researchers’ interest from the last few decades and is a widely explored topic in the area of organizational studies (Rupp, Shapiro, Folger, Skarlicki, & Shao, 2017). In a journey that spans more than six decades (1950 onwards), organizational justice first traversed the path of divergence to evolve from being a single-dimensional construct (distributive justice) to become a two-dimensional construct (distributive and procedural justice), then three (distributive, procedural and interactional justice) and finally a four-dimensional construct (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice). In the latter part of its journey in the twenty-first century, the concept started taking a slight detour, slowly moving towards the path of convergence in the form of integrative and overall justice. A timeline diagram of this journey of justice is provided in Figure 1 for readers’ clarity.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

Today, organizational justice is at crossroads—standing at the verge of being reassessed on its construct validity in the present era (Rupp et al., 2017). It will not be long before that justice embarks on a new road of its ever-continuing journey. This article is an attempt at reviewing justice literature over the last six decades and presenting it in a consolidated manner to readers. Such reviews do happen intermittently (e.g., Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005; Coyle-Shapiro & Dhensa, 2011; Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001; Greenberg, 1990b). The latest review by Coyle-Shapiro and Dhensa (2011) focused on the newer justice challenges such as retributive, restorative and anticipatory justice; but did not chronicle the developments that led to the evolution of the various justice models. The last review that chronicled historical developments in justice research was by Colquitt et al. (2005) and was published 12 years back. We feel it is time for another review of the literature to capture recent advancements in the field such as overall justice, multifoci justice, overall and faceted justice and fairness, and various measurement approaches. There is also a need to highlight the debates, discussions and disagreements amongst fellow researchers on the conceptualization and operationalization measures of the construct. This article ends by discussing the study by Rupp et al. (2017) that sets the ground for future justice studies and probably marks the starting point of a new path in the journey of justice.

Early Theories and Distributive Justice

The concept of justice dates back to the era of Aristotle and Plato (Colquitt et al., 2001) when it was linked to moral righteousness. Further, philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes and Mills used the concept to set rules for individuals to behave in a society (Colquitt et al., 2005). Thus was conceived the concept of justice as a ‘normative ideal’ in the society (Colquitt et al., 2005, p. 4). Given this background, it is not surprising that the early justice theories tested principles of justice in general social interactions (Greenberg, 1990b). It was only in the second half of the twentieth century that researchers tried to contextualize these studies to actual organizational settings and thus was born the topic—organizational justice (Greenberg, 1987a). Further, most of these early theories were also concerned only about outcome fairness (Colquitt, 2001; Rupp et al., 2017). Hence, the first justice dimension that came to be widely studied was related to outcome fairness and was called distributive justice. Colquitt et al. (2005) describe the period from the 1950s to 1970s as the ‘distributive justice wave’ (p. 8). In the modern organizational context, ‘distributive justice is defined as the fairness of outcomes an employee receives or fairness in decisions that affect an employee as compared to what comparable others are receiving in his or her vicinity’ (Colquitt et al., 2001). In spite of the fact that the early theories were tested in social settings instead of organizational context, it is worth discussing some of them in this section since they formed the initial milestone to the journey of justice and paved the way to the present day concept of distributive justice.

Theoretical Background and Research

Often, Stouffer’s relative deprivation theory (Stouffer, Suchman, DeVinney, Star, & Williams, 1949) is believed to be the base to the concept of distributive justice. The theory stated that people’s perception of fairness of outcome is relative to what others, against whom they judge themselves, have received or not received. The study conducted on US Military personnel during the Second World War revealed that frustration levels were higher in US Air Corps where the probability of securing a promotion was 56 per cent as compared to the US Military Police (MP) group where the chance of being promoted was only 34 per cent, since promotion felt like an individual success in the MP group where not all peers could get it. Surely, MP group officials were not comparing themselves with the Air Corps group. Similarly, although, conditions in South USA were worse than in North, the soldiers stationed in South zone were in better spirits than their counterparts in the North zone because they considered themselves economically better-off to the civilians residing there, instead of drawing a comparison with the North zone soldiers. Hence, relative, and not absolute fairness, had a stronger psychological impact on people.

In 1961, Homans proposed his distributive justice theory to state that parties involved in an exchange expect profits that are proportionate to the investments they perceive to have made to it. When profits meet expectations, distributive justice is perceived. Higher profits lead to guilt and lower profits lead to anger and frustration. They agreed with Stouffer et al. (1949) that the perception was relative and not absolute. Blau (1964) also stated that parties involved in a social exchange expect benefits from the process. These expectations are based on the parties’ past experiences or experiences of a comparison group against whom these parties judge themselves. Hence, Blau introduced the concept of different comparison points for perceiving justice which was later, taken forward by Adams (1965).

The year 1965 proved to be a landmark in the journey of justice when Adams proposed his Equity Theory that became the dominant approach to explain distributive justice. The theory proposed that individuals compare the ratio of the outcomes received from workplace (such as pay, job status, etc.) to the inputs that they invest into work (such as education, intelligence, etc.) to the ratios of self at an earlier point of time or comparison others to perceive equity. The perception, however, changes with changing reference frames, which was in alignment with relative deprivation theory. Aligned with Homans (1961), equity theory suggested that perceived underpayment inequity breeds anger and overpayment inequity breeds guilt. The theory allowed the use of multiple referents for comparison. In an organizational context, these reference points could be the individual himself/herself in the same role outside the organization or in a different role inside the same organization, peers in the same role outside the organization or inside the organization and so on.

Adams (1965) took his study further to understand how individuals would react to inequity which was missing in Homans’s (1961) study. He proposed that inequity leads to psychological stress and cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) which motivated individuals to restore equitable state by altering input or outcome or both. Adams reviewed the findings from Adams and Rosenbaum’s (1962) experiment on undergraduate students hired to conduct interviews to support his proposition. In this study, a group of students were led to believe by the experimenters that they were being overpaid by telling them that they were under-qualified for the job, and these were the ones who ended up taking more interviews. However, Pritchard (1969) questioned the validity of this experiment in wake of the decreased self-esteem of the so called ‘under-qualified’ participants. In spite of criticism on its testability, equity theory continued to garner conformity through further studies. Studies on baseball players also revealed that perceived pay inequity reduced performance levels (Lord & Hohenfeld, 1979; Werner & Mero, 1999). Greenberg (1990a) studied that underpayment inequity (caused by pay-cuts) might lead employees to indulge in theft at the organization. However, an explanation about the pay-cut did mitigate the effect of inequity, hinting at the importance of interactional fairness. A stronger, and often darker, reaction to inequity could also be the victim’s urge to take revenge, termed as ‘retributive justice’ (Bies & Tripp, 2001), which could be detrimental to organizational culture, since most avengers justify unjust deeds. Hence, organizations must facilitate systems to peacefully restore justice where offenders are willing to reconcile and victims are willing to forgive, leading to what is termed as ‘restorative justice’ (Goodstein & Aquino, 2010).

In the early 1970s, researchers such as Leventhal (1976a, 1976b) and Deutsch (1975) drew attention towards other allocation norms such as equality and need that can serve managerial intentions of promoting solidarity or ensuring employee welfare and development, respectively. Though used in some studies (e.g., Mannix, Neale, & Northcraft, 1995), these concepts did not garner much popularity, probably, because they were not as appealing to individual employees (at non-managerial positions). Further, as organizations grew to be more performance driven, managers too emphasized individual productivity, thereby, leading to equity norms dominating research.

Measurement Scales

The first validated scale for the construct was developed by Price and Mueller (1986; see Appendix). This four-item scale measured reward fairness considering an employee’s work responsibilities, efforts, strains and quality of work done. Later, when Colquitt (2001) developed an integrated scale for organizational justice (see Appendix), he incorporated all these four items from Price and Mueller’s (1986) scale in the sub-scale for distributive justice but broadened the context by talking about general outcomes instead of only rewards. The aforementioned two scales have been the most widely used scales in distributive justice studies (Rupp et al., 2017) and do not refer to any referent points. As per the metadata collected by Rupp et al. (2017), 65 studies from 1991 to 2013, have used the Price and Mueller’s (1986) scale and 34 studies, since, 2003 used Colquitt’s (2001) scale.

Towards Procedural Justice

Though distributive justice dominated research from the 1950s to 1970s, few studies, in passing, did mention procedural fairness too. For instance, Blau (1964) hinted at procedural fairness when he mentioned that in a social exchange, parties were expected to follow certain code of conduct and stick to certain expected standards. Deutsch (1975) stated that the procedures used by allocators also influenced the justice perception in social relationships. Leventhal (1976a) argued that not only allocation but the information given to individuals that led to that allocation also influences the notion of justice which was somewhat similar to Pritchard’s (1969) arguments. The aforementioned studies laid grounds for the introduction of the second dimension of organizational justice—‘procedural justice’ which is defined as the fairness of procedures used to implement decisions and allocate outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001). Colquitt et al. (2005) describe the period from the 1970s to 1990s as the ‘procedural justice wave’ (p. 9).

Theoretical Background and Research

The first study that contributed hugely towards procedural justice literature was the monograph published by Thibaut and Walker (1975) which contrasted the adversarial legal system (practised in the USA and Great Britain) with the inquisitorial system (practised in continental Europe). While in the adversarial system the judge controls the decision but not the process of presenting evidence that led to the decision, in an inquisitorial system, the judge controls both the outcome and the process. Walker, LaTour, Lind, and Thibaut (1974) and Thibaut, Walker, LaTour, and Houlden (1974) conducted two simulations to reveal that irrespective of the outcome, participants preferred the adversarial system since it allowed them more process control. Thus, Thibaut and Walker (1975) identified optimal distribution of control as the key requirement for procedural justice. Further, Thibaut and Walker (1978) stated that disputants preferred process control to outcome control because they felt that having control on the process would help them influence the verdict, thus giving them indirect control of the outcome. However, the context of these studies remained restricted to legal dispute resolution.

Leventhal (1980) built on Thibaut and Walker’s (1975) work to speculate that a process to be fair should be: (a) consistent across people and time, (b) unbiased, (c) based on accurate information, (d) able to correct flawed decisions, (e) ethically right and (f) representative of voices of all groups in consideration. However, Leventhal (1980) cautioned that the rules of this ‘justice judgement model’ were speculative and that there was no test available at that time to confirm them. Though considered to be a landmark study in the history of procedural justice, Leventhal (1980) and Leventhal, Karuza, and Fry (1980) stated that procedural fairness has minimal influence on outcomes and mattered only to individuals receiving unfavourable outcomes. Individuals receiving favourable outcomes often did not bother about it, unlike Thibaut and Walker (1975, 1978) who noted that individuals did emphasize procedural justice, irrespective of the outcomes. Leventhal and colleagues (Leventhal, 1980; Leventhal et al., 1980) also viewed procedural justice as an antecedent to distributive justice whereas Thibaut and Walker (1975) viewed them as two different concepts.

In the late 1970s, Folger and colleagues (Folger, 1977; Folger, Rosenfield, Grove, & Corkran, 1979) introduced the ‘fair process effect’ and stated that individuals were better satisfied with a decision when they were provided a voice in the process that led to the decision. Greenberg and Folger (1983) and Folger and Greenberg (1985) argued that providing more ‘voice’ and ‘choice’ to employees in organizational processes (such as performance management or compensation systems) and decision making enhanced perceived organizational fairness.

The late 1980s saw many studies attempting to establish the fact that employees perceived procedural and distributive justice differently and that each facet had unique influence on outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2005). Greenberg (1986) conducted a study in the context of performance evaluations of middle managers and proved through factor analysis that distributive justice was different from procedural justice. Tyler and Caine (1981) conducted a series of studies on teachers and political officials to conclude that procedural justice had stronger influence on leadership dimensions than distributive justice, which was opposed to the statements made by Leventhal (1980).

Another important work on procedural justice was the book by Lind and Tyler (1988) that built on concepts given by Thibaut and Walker (1975) and Leventhal (1980) to propose the group value model (non-instrumental) of procedural justice. Instrumental model (also known as self-interest model), thus far, had suggested that individuals desired procedural control to enhance their probability of receiving favourable outcomes (Leventhal, 1980) or equitable outcomes (Thibaut & Walker, 1978). As opposed to this, group value model argued that individuals valued procedural control not only because of their self-interest in favourable outcomes, but also because it gave them a sense of being valued, a feeling of self-worth and a social standing in a group. The model further extended to group engagement model (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Tyler & Blader, 2003) that theorized that justice perceptions lead to enhanced pride in the group or identification with the group, which in turn influences positive employee behaviours. It proved the influence of procedural justice on behavioural outcomes and not merely attitudinal outcomes, thereby, addressing a major literature gap.

The group value model was further supplemented by the relational model of authority proposed by Tyler and Lind (1992) that suggested that procedural justice plays a role in legitimizing authorities in a group. This study was instrumental in differentiating procedural justice from distributive justice by arguing that while distributive justice was more relevant to individual’s short-term material goals (like pay raise), procedural justice influenced long-term relational measures (like trust). Folger and Konovsky (1989) corroborated this by surveying 217 employees in a manufacturing set-up to find that distributive justice strongly influences satisfaction with pay raise decisions, whereas procedural justice was the stronger predictor when it came to higher order issues such as organizational commitment and trust. Sweeney and McFarlin (1993) revealed through their study on a sample of engineers working in a public utility company that procedural justice was a stronger predictor of a system-referenced outcome like organizational commitment whereas distributive justice better predicted a person-referenced outcome like pay satisfaction. They coined a term like the ‘two factor model’ (p. 24). The meta-analysis by Viswesvaran and Ones (2002) stated that organizational outcomes such as commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and productivity were predicted better by procedural justice, which mediated the relationship between distributive justice and outcomes.

Certain other studies focused on the interactive effects of distributive and procedural justice. Greenberg (1987b) proved in an experimental design that distributive justice and procedural justice interacted with each other to influence perceived fairness and intentions to complain against the outcome and concluded by noting that ‘means justify the ends’ (p. 55). Brockner (2002) found that the effect of distributive justice on self-referenced criteria (e.g., pay satisfaction) was enhanced by higher levels of procedural justice, whereas in case of system-referenced criteria (e.g., trust or organizational commitment), procedural justice neutralized the effect of distributive justice.

Meanwhile, a series of studies (e.g., Cropanzano & Folger, 1989; Folger & Martin, 1986; Folger, Rosenfield, Hays, & Grove, 1978) related to Folger’s (1986, 1987) referent cognitions theory (RCT) added to the literature of the interactive effects of distributive and procedural justice. RCT states that resentment to inequity is more pronounced when individuals perceive that the results would have been better (high-referent conditions), had fair procedures been followed. Folger and Martin (1986) confirmed RCT through an experiment where they proved that the resentment for high-referent outcomes and low procedural justification was significantly higher than low-referent outcomes and low procedural justification. However, there was a lack of resentment for high justification procedures in both high and low-referent conditions. Cropanzano and Folger (1989) conducted an experiment to conclude that high-referent conditions with low procedural control, led to most resentment to inequity. Folger et al. (1978) proved that when individuals themselves chose to be underpaid, they performed better compared to those who were not offered any such choice. Aquino, Tripp, and Bies (2006) proved that a victim to inequity was more willing to forgive (restorative justice) when he/she had a higher status than the offender and perceived procedural justice; whereas victims with a status lower than the offender and under low procedural justice conditions often retorted to taking revenge (retributive justice). All these studies confirmed the moderation effects of procedural justice on distributive justice conditions.

Although few studies (e.g., Martocchio & Judge, 1995; Welbourne, Balkin, & Gomez-Mejia, 1995) found high correlations between distributive and procedural justice (uncorrected correlation ranging from 0.72 to 0.74), the two-factor model was well established by the 1990s and procedural justice had secured its standing as another individual justice facet.

Measurement Scales

In the 1980s, most studies used the scales developed by Folger and Konovsky (1989; see Appendix) or Greenberg (1986; see Appendix) to operationalize the construct. However, the first global measure for procedural justice was developed by Sweeney and McFarlin (1993; see Appendix) with each item referring to different events such as performance evaluations, performance feedbacks, promotions or pay hikes. Today, just like distributive justice, the most widely used scale for procedural justice is also Colquitt’s (2001; see Appendix) scale (Rupp et al., 2017). The metadata collected by Rupp et al. (2017) show that since 2003, 54 studies assessing procedural justice have used this scale. The seven-item sub-scale for procedural justice is based on Leventhal’s (1980) rules and does not refer to any specific referent.

Introducing Interactional Justice

While study on structural characteristics of procedures took precedence during the 1970s to 1990s, few researchers also focused on the interpersonal nature of decision making. For instance, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) claimed that fair supervisorial treatment could mitigate the effects of perceived inequity. Leventhal (1980) suggested that using friendly and supportive tone could lessen the blow of a bad news. These studies, though did not explicitly mention the term, but paved way towards the third dimension of organizational justice called the ‘interactional justice’—the quality of interpersonal treatment people receive when procedures are implemented (Bies & Moag, 1986). Colquitt et al. (2005) describe the period from the mid-1980s to early 2000s as the ‘interactional justice wave’ (p. 10).

Theoretical Background and Research

The paradigm of interactional justice is built on the work of Bies and Moag (1986) that identified four rules of interpersonal treatment that authorities implementing decision-making procedures should follow: (a) truthfulness: open and candid communication about procedures, (b) justification: adequate explanations of the outcomes of a decision-making process, (c) respect: respect for individual dignity and polite behaviour and (d) propriety: refraining from making improper remarks regarding ones age, gender, race or religion.

Further, Bies and associates empirically proved that interactional justice rules influenced attitudinal outcomes. Bies (1987) assessed the justification provided and the respect shown by the boss to individuals while denying their requests. It was found that justification and respect had different unique effects on fairness perception. Bies and Shapiro (1987) asked participants to role play a situation where their boss took credit of their ideas and manipulated the level of justification provided by the boss. They found that the level of justification provided by supervisors determined the level of approval of their actions by employees. A follow up study by Bies and Shapiro (1988) confirmed the findings of the earlier two studies. Bies (1987), somehow, did not use the interactional justice terminology but it found a mention in the 1987 study by Bies and Shapiro.

Greenberg (1990a) studied the level of theft in three plants before, during and after a 15 per cent pay-cut. The study revealed that adequate explanation for the procedure resulted in decreased levels of theft and turnover resulting from perception of pay inequity. Similarly, Brockner, DeWitt, Grover, and Reed (1990) argued that a proper justification of lay-off procedures could result in increased organizational commitment and work efforts for lay-off survivors. These studies proved the influence of interactional justice rules on workplace behaviours and not merely attitudinal outcomes. However, the term ‘interactional justice’ remained silent in these studies.

In spite of the aforementioned studies proving the tenets of interactional justice, it could not emerge as a separate justice dimension at that point of time. Bies (2015) describes that the concept faced strong criticism when he first proposed it. Contemporary research such as Folger and Bies (1989), Tyler and Bies (1990) and Greenberg, Bies, and Eskew (1991) further muddled matters by positioning interactional justice as a facet of procedural justice. These studies mixed-up the interactional justice rules identified by Bies and Moag (1986) with Thibaut and Walker’s (1975) concept of considering employee views and Leventhal’s (1980) rules of consistency or bias-suppression. In fact, Tyler and Bies (1990) referred to it as the ‘interpersonal dimension of procedural justice’ (p. 77) and the ‘human side of procedural justice’ (p. 91). Few studies even combined interactional and procedural measures to a single index in their studies (e.g., Dailey & Kirk, 1992; Folger & Konovsky, 1989). Others such as Greenberg (1990a) and Brockner et al. (1990) tested interactional justice rules without explicitly mentioning the term in their work. Hence, the concept simmered underneath until it finally surfaced in the early 1990s as the third justice dimension.

Moorman’s (1991) study is considered a trend setter in interactional justice research. The study explicitly used the term ‘interactional justice’, claiming it to be different from procedural justice and also designed a scale to measure the construct. However, the scale suffered from what Colquitt (2001) describes as ‘cross pollination’ of items because some of the items in the scale (e.g., ‘our supervisor was able to suppress personal biases’) referred to procedural aspects and not interactional aspects. Hence, further studies such as Mansour-Cole and Scott (1998) or Skarlicki and Latham (1997) that used Moorman’s scale to measure interactional justice found high inter-correlation between procedural and interactional justice and ended up combining them to one construct.

Yet another stream of research talked about the interchangeability of procedural justice with interactional justice. For instance, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found that perceived outcome inequity could be mitigated through perceived procedural fairness or fairness of supervisorial interactions. Similarly, Barclay, Skarlicki, and Pugh (2005) stated that the effect of distributive justice on emotional reactions is dependent on either procedural or interactional justice.

However, Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, and Taylor (2000) proved that procedural and interactional justice differed in the outcomes that they influenced. While procedural justice influenced system- referenced outcomes, interactional justice was related to supervisor-referenced outcomes. Bies (2001) and Bobocel and Holmvall (2001) argued that procedural and interactional justice were based on different rules and hence, strongly propounded the separation of the two justice dimensions.

Another unique aspect of interactional justice was that it could also be applied to employee interactions with multiple parties such as customers (Rupp & Spencer, 2006; Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, & Walker, 2008) or peers (Cropanzano, Li, & Benson, 2011). O’ Reilly, Aquino, and Skarlicki (2016) found that third parties’ reaction to interpersonal inequity was stronger than that to distributive or procedural inequity.

Subsequent studies did support the three-dimensional model of organizational justice (e.g., Burton, Sablynski, & Sekiguchi, 2008; Wang, Liao, Xia, & Chang, 2010) and even positioned interactional justice as the strongest predictor of key organizational outcomes (e.g., Burton et al., 2008; Masterson et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2010). Today, interactional justice rules are even said to encompass broader aspects such as truth and human dignity (Bies, 2015) which aligns with the ‘moral virtues model’ of justice proposed by Cropanzano et al. (2001) that states that individuals care for justice because it upholds basic values such as human dignity and trust.

Splitting of Interactional Justice to Interpersonal and Informational Justice

Greenberg (1993a) observed in an experiment that justification and respect had unique effects on employee behaviours of indulging in theft which was aligned with findings of Bies (1987). Greenberg (1993b) argued that this was the social side of distributive justice and termed it as—‘interpersonal justice’. This dimension reflects the degree to which supervisors treat their subordinates with respect and dignity (Colquitt, 2001). Similarly, candid information could influence individual perception about structural characteristics of procedures and can be viewed as the social side of procedural justice. Greenberg (1993b) termed this as the ‘informational justice’. ‘This dimension reflects the accuracy and timeliness of information provided by supervisors to subordinates regarding implementation of procedures that result in a certain fashion of outcome distribution’ (Colquitt, 2001). Thus, Greenberg (1993b) introduced the four-dimensional model of justice which was later confirmed empirically by Colquitt (2001) in a field as well as laboratory study, where he proved through confirmatory factor analysis that a best fit model could be obtained by separating informational justice (justification and truthfulness) from interpersonal justice (respect and propriety). The study further noted that studies obtaining high inter-correlations between various justice dimensions did so because of ‘cross pollination’ of items in measurement scales that they used. That is, items used to measure one justice dimension were more suitable for another justice dimension (Greenberg, 1990b). For instance, Joy and Witt (1992) included items assessing the quality of treatment employees received (interactional justice) in a distributive justice scale.

Colquitt (2001) attempted to resolve this problem by developing a standardized scale for organizational justice consisting four separate sub-scales for the four different justice dimensions. Subsequent studies used this measure to provide evidence for the validity of a four-dimensional justice structure (e.g., Cole, Bernerth, Walter, & Holt, 2010; Jawahar, 2007; Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Hartnell, 2009). Research on four-dimensional justice model is quite common now-a-days. However, the practice of solely focusing on the interactional justice construct is still not popular. Only 57 out of 176 studies reviewed by Rupp et al. (2017) have done this. Also, the use of four-dimensional model is sparse as compared to the three-dimensional model of justice (Day, 2011).

Measurement Scales

Initially, most studies used the Bies and Moag (1986) rules to construct items measuring interactional justice (e.g., Roberts & Markel, 2001). Later, Moorman’s (1991) interactional justice scale (see Appendix) became the first independent scale for this construct. Today, Colquitt’s (2001) scale (see Appendix) is the most widely used scale for measuring interactional justice (that includes separate sub-scales for interpersonal and informational dimensions). The interpersonal justice sub-scale has four items based on Bies and Moag’s (1986) rules of respect and propriety. The informational justice sub-scale has five items based on work of Bies and Moag (1986; referencing justification and truthfulness rules) and Shapiro, Buttner, and Barry (1994).

Exploring Multiple Foci of Justice Facets

The four-dimensional justice model was well established by the early 2000s. Researchers took it forward from here by exploring the different sources from where justice facets could emanate from. This led to emergence of multifoci justice models.

Cropanzano et al. (2001) claimed that individuals not only perceive justice (distributive, procedural and interactional) during particular events such as performance management or recruitment and selection but also link justice perceptions to entities such as organization or supervisor. Perception of event-based justice could influence entity-based justice and vice-versa.

Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) and Blader and Tyler (2003) argued that procedural and interactional justice could be agent focused or system focused. Just like Leventhal’s rules that could be applied to both processes and decision-making authorities (Tyler & Bies, 1990), Bies and Moag’s (1986) interactional rules could also be applied to both authorities as well as systems in the organization. For instance, supervisor might be respectful of the subordinate, but the way letters or memos are drafted in an organization might be rude. Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) found high correlation between system-focused and agent-focused dimensions of both procedural and interactional justice, but did establish the multifoci concept of justice to some extent. Blader and Tyler (2003) also researched in similar lines to propose a four-dimensional model in terms of ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ versions of both procedural and interactional justice.

Finally, Lavelle, Rupp, and Brockner (2007) integrated the multifoci approaches taken for organizational justice (distributive, procedural and interactional justice), social exchange and OCB to propose the target similarity model (TSM) where they proposed that justice emanating from three different sources—organization, supervisor and co-worker—led to different employee outcomes which finally led to three different types of OCBs. Lavelle et al. (2007) drew on commitment literature by Reichers (1985) to suggest that foci could be broadly categorized as central (e.g., supervisor, co-workers used in the model) or peripheral (e.g., customers, vendors) and mention that TSM could also be extended to peripheral foci.

Other researchers took this concept of TSM further by studying justice climates at work group levels (e.g., Naumann & Bennet, 2000; Spell & Arnold, 2007), arguing that managerial behaviour and social talks might influence collective justice perception at a team level that might be different from individual perception of justice, yet might influence individual justice perceptions. Lately, the trend is catching pace and many studies are exploring the multilevel analysis method for evaluating justice perceptions (e.g., Haines, Patient, & Marchand, 2018; Li, Zhang, Zhang, & Zhou, 2017).

On the Path to Convergence: Integrative Justice

As justice moved ahead on the path of divergence, there was also an occasional pull on the way towards consolidation in the form of what Colquitt et al. (2005) refers to as ‘the integrative wave’ (p. 11) that shares its chronological space with the interactional wave in the years between the 1980s and 2000s. This phase is marked by ‘theories and models that studied the combined effect of multiple justice dimensions on outcomes’. Colquitt et al. (2005) identified three major approaches towards integrative justice: (a) counterfactual conceptualizations, (b) group-oriented conceptualizations and (c) heuristic conceptualizations.

Counterfactual Conceptualizations: RCT and Fairness Theory

Folger (1986) noted that anger, resentment and sense of relative deprivation could be other possible reactions to injustice along with distress mentioned by Adams (1965). Thus, developed RCT (Folger, 1986, 1987) that states that resentment to inequity is profound when referent outcomes are high and justification is low. While referent outcome is related to distributive justice, justification could involve aspects of both procedural and informational justice. Fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998, 2001) was an extension to RCT and stated that affirmative answers to the following counterfactual questions would increase the probability of an authority being blamed of injustice:

Would I be better-off if a different procedure or outcome happened?

Could the authority have resorted to other courses of action?

Should the authority have resorted to other courses of action?

While the ‘would question’ invokes aspects of distributive as well as procedural justice, the ‘could question’ relates to procedural justice and the ‘should question’ brings out the aspects of morality and ethics, thereby reflecting on interpersonal aspects of justice.

Group-oriented Conceptualizations: Group Value Model, Relational Model and Group Engagement Model

While these models played an important role in the procedural justice literature (already discussed in the section ‘Towards procedural justice’ of this article), a closer look at the models also brings out aspects of interactional justice. While elaborating on group value model, Lind and Tyler (1988) refer to ‘respect’ as one of the parameters that reaffirm group values and promote fairness perceptions. Similarly, relational model of authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992) highlights the importance of one’s good relations with supervisors to promote feeling of being valued in the group as well as perceptions of procedural justice. Hence, both models stress on the interpersonal aspect of justice. Group engagement model (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Tyler & Blader, 2003) also states that both procedural fairness in organizational and interactional fairness from supervisors drive identity with the group, which in turn influences positive organizational behaviours.

Heuristic Conceptualizations: Fairness Heuristic Theory (FHT) and Uncertainty Management Theory (UMT)

Built on the relational model of authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992), FHT (Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & de Vera Park, 1993) states that justice judgements positively influence the acceptance levels of a decision taken by an authority. Such judgements are formed fast, based on whatever information is available and serve as ‘fairness heuristics’ for subsequent decisions. For instance, if an employee perceives a manager to be rudely behaved (interpersonal injustice) in the first interaction, he might already perceive that the manager would be unfair in reward distribution too in future (distributive injustice). A follow up study on this (Van den Bos, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997) revealed that information provided first (whether outcome or procedural) became the key driver for employee attitudes and behaviours. Lind et al. (1993) and Lind (2001a) also stated that fairness heuristics serve as a proxy for trust in the authority since judging trust might take long time. Introduced as a successor to FHT, UMT stated that fairness perception could mitigate the uncertainty regarding trustworthiness of authority figure or even general uncertainty that had nothing to do with any authority figure (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002; Van den Bos & Lind, 2002). The aforementioned studies on FHT and UMT focused both on procedural and interpersonal facets of justice at the same time and could be classified under the ‘integrative wave’ phase.

Converging to Overall Justice

The notion of convergence of justice facets and existence of a global fairness perception was as old as the early works on procedural justice. Seminal works on procedural justice viewed it to be a determinant of overall justice perceptions, along with distributive justice (Leventhal, 1980; Leventhal et al., 1980). Lind and Tyler (1988) stated that procedural fairness ‘plays at least as large a role as distributive fairness in determining overall justice judgements’ (p. 135). In spite of this, when Ambrose and Schminke proposed their initial ideas on overall justice in the year 2000, it was not well received and the authors were in for a ‘rocky start’ (Ambrose, Wo, & Griffith, 2015, p. 131). However, the concept started gaining momentum in 2001, when researchers such as Greenberg (2001), Lind (2001a, 2001b) and Shapiro (2001) suggested a shift towards a more holistic model of justice that would capture, in totality, the depth and richness of an individual’s justice experiences. Thus, was conceived the definition of overall justice—a global perception of fairness judgements inspired by an individual’s own experiences or experiences of others (Aryee et al., 2015). Borrowing the ‘wave’ nomenclature from Colquitt et al. (2005), we consider that the ‘overall justice wave’ started from 2001 and is growing stronger in the present times.

Theoretical Background and Research

A major thrust to the concept of overall justice emerged from the works on FHT in 2001. Until date, FHT remains the most commonly used theory to explain overall justice effects (Aryee et al., 2015). Lind (2001a) noted that individuals usually rely on information available from different justice facets to form a general justice judgement, which in turn, leads to formation of fairness heuristics. This, they described as the judgemental phase of heuristics formation. In this phase, information available from one justice facet can substitute for the unavailability of information from another facet. Lind (2001a) argued that this substitutability effect is possible only because individuals form a general fairness judgement. In the use phase, the heuristics formed from general justice judgement influence employee attitudes, behaviours and their perception of individual justice facets. Thus, FHT proposes a two-way relationship between overall justice and individual justice facets.

Tansky (1993) and Tornblom and Vermunt (1999) were two of the earliest empirical studies on overall fairness. Tansky (1993) operationalized overall fairness using a three-item measure and proved its positive influence on outcomes. However, he did not explore the differentiation between overall fairness and its facets. Later, in 1999, Tornblom and Vermunt suggested that total fairness mediates the relationship between components of total fairness (distributive justice, procedural justice and outcome favourability) and these components are substitutable, thus arguing that individuals perceive justice in a more gestalt-like manner and that ‘components of fairness are meaningful only in relation to the overall fairness of the situation’ (p. 51).

Further, a meta-analysis by Hauenstein, McGonigle, and Flinder (2001) found a high correlation of 0.64 between distributive and procedural justice and suggested that overall justice (defined as composite of individual justice facets) better explained the variance in the dependent variables. They also urged other researchers to give greater importance to models that ‘consider general fairness perceptions to be the central causal mechanism’ (p. 51).

The concept further garnered support from Greenberg (2001) and Shapiro (2001) who suggested that individual’s perception of (in)justice is holistic or general in nature that is not fully captured by facet-specific justice dimensions. Researchers such as Ambrose and Arnaud (2005) and Fassina, Jones, and Uggerslev (2008) suggested that overall justice could be a solution to the problem of shared variance between justice facets or unaccounted variance in outcomes that cannot be explained by individual justice facets.

Colquitt and Shaw (2005) further contributed to the concept of overall justice by suggesting two ways to measure it: (a) as a latent construct and (b) as a global perception. As a higher order latent construct, overall justice could be constructed by adding the scores of facet-specific justice scales. The second way uses direct measures such as ‘my organization is fair’ or ‘my supervisor is fair’. Colquitt and Shaw (2005) stated that the first method is useful when measuring multiple events or entity judgements in field studies, whereas the second method is appropriate if justice is being used as a dependent variable or a mediator between justice facets and outcomes. They also noted that when the objective of the study is to measure global attitudes or behaviour like job performance, it is appropriate to use overall justice instead of individual justice dimensions.

Initial studies on overall justice mostly focused on: (a) studying the influence of justice facets on the construct (e.g., Beugre & Baron, 2001; Hollensbe, Khazanchi, & Masterson, 2008; Holtz & Harold, 2009) and (b) studying the mediating influence of overall justice between justice facets and other outcomes (e.g., Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Jones & Martens, 2009; Kim & Leung, 2007). In either ways, these studies were instrumental in establishing overall justice as a construct, separate from the justice facets. However, there was no agreement on the magnitude of influence of justice facets on overall justice (Patel, Budhwar, & Varma, 2012).

Beugre and Baron (2001) found that procedural and interactional justice better predicted overall justice (termed as systemic justice in the study) and distributive justice had no significant influence on the construct. Gradually, studies also considered other predictor variables such as trust (Holtz & Harold, 2009), organizational support, diversity, flexibility, supervisor fairness, workforce stability and affect (Hollensbe et al., 2008) that influenced overall justice. These studies hinted at something very important—overall justice perceptions can also be formed from non-justice antecedents. A recent study by Rodell, Colquitt, and Baer (2017) confirms this by stating the positive influence of charismatic supervisory style on overall fairness levels.

A landmark study by Ambrose and Schminke (2009) was the first to empirically prove the mediating effect of overall justice between justice facets and employee attitudes and behaviours, using two different studies. The study confirmed that justice facets and overall justice loaded on two different factors. The researchers also developed a scale six-item scale to measure overall justice called the ‘Perceived Overall Justice (POJ)’ scale, which today, is the most widely used scale to measure the construct. Soon, other studies added on to the empirical evidence. In a cross-cultural study conducted across four countries (USA, China, Japan and Korea), Kim and Leung (2007) found support for such mediation and also stated the influence of culture on overall justice—justice facets relationship. Jones and Martens (2009) proved that overall fairness judgements of senior management mediated the effects of justice dimensions on commitment or turnover intentions. They also noted that distributive and interpersonal justice better predicted overall justice than informational or procedural justice. A recent study by Patel et al. (2012) on Indian call centre employees found overall justice to be mediating the relationship between justice facets and work group identification, which in turn, influenced counterproductive work behaviour. Contrary to Jones and Martens (2009), they noted that distributive justice is the weakest predictor of overall justice, followed by procedural, informational and interpersonal justice. This is aligned with findings from Barclay and Kiefer (2014) who stated that procedural and interactional justice are better predictor of overall justice since they are stable over time, predict personal value and have lesser attributional ambiguity as compared to distributive justice. Marzucco, Marique, Stinglhamber, De Roeck, and Hansez (2014) observed that overall justice mediated the relationship between justice facets and employee attitudes in cases of organizational change—restructuring and merger. Another study in Lithuania by Lazauskaitė-Zabielskė (2017) proved that effect of justice facets on overall justice differs across different human resource decisions, pointing towards the event-based justice perceptions. It is more pronounced in case of developmental opportunities and lesser when we consider pay or performance appraisal fairness.

Few other studies also explored the role of overall justice in mediating the effects of non-justice antecedents such as leadership style (Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008; Tremblay, 2010), organizational communication structure (Kim, 2007), perceived corporate social responsibilities (De Roeck, Marique, Stinglhamber, & Swaen, 2014) or human resource practices (T.-W. Tang & Tang, 2012) on outcomes. These studies reiterated the fact that overall justice perceptions can also be formed independent of justice facets.

Recent studies have explored more complex models where they examine the effect of overall justice as an independent antecedent on organizational outcomes in presence of other mediators (Aryee et al., 2015; Barclay & Kiefer, 2014; Whiteside & Barclay, 2013) and moderators (Bobocel, 2013; Soenen, Melkonian, & Ambrose, 2017). Aryee et al. (2015) proved that need satisfaction acted as a mediator between overall justice and intrinsic motivation. It also mediated the relationship between overall justice and organizational trust. In turn, intrinsic motivation and organizational trust drove job performance. Barclay and Kiefer (2014) concluded that overall justice predicted both positive and negative emotions. Further, positive and negative emotions mediated the overall justice—job–performance relationship. Whiteside and Barclay (2013) found in a field survey that silence mediated the relationship between overall justice and behaviours. Bobocel (2013) studied the moderation effect of an individual’s orientation (self or others) on relationship between overall justice and reactions to an unfair event (forgiveness or revenge). In a longitudinal study conducted in a merger and acquisition situation, Soenen et al. (2017) argued that the event of organizational change moderated the relationship between overall justice perception at a certain point of time and subsequent overall justice perceptions.

Researchers have also used overall justice as a moderator (e.g., Kim, Kim, & Yun, 2017; Sharoni et al., 2012) and others have used it as a control (Cojuharenco, Shteynberg, Gelfand, & Schminke, 2012). Since 2012, another body of research has started focusing on overall justice climate defined as ‘a distinct unit-level cognition regarding shared perceptions of treatment by organizational authorities’ (Whitman, Caleo, Carpenter, Horner, & Bernerth, 2012, p. 777). Only few studies have explored this aspect (e.g., Cropanzano, Walumbwa, & Aryee, 2013; Schminke, Arnaud, & Taylor, 2015; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Misati, 2017) and enough scope for future research exists here (Ambrose et al., 2015).

Measurement Scales

Colquitt and Shaw (2005) suggested two ways for measuring overall justice: (a) as a latent factor construed from justice facets scale scores or (b) as a global perception which requires the use of an independent scale for the construct. Only few studies have used the first approach (e.g., Barclay & Kiefer, 2014; Swalhi, Zgoulli, & Hofaidhllaoui, 2017), the latter being more popular.

With no standardized measure defined for the construct, studies trying to assess it, constructed their own independent measures—For instance, the three-item scale by Tansky (1993), 12-item scale by Beugre and Baron (2001), three-item scale by Kim (2004) or the three-item scale for overall supervisory entity perception by Choi (2008). However, after the publication of the work by Ambrose and Schminke (2009), the six-item POJ scale (see Appendix) by them has been the most widely used measure to assess overall justice. Out of the 23 studies (conducted in or after the year 2009) reviewed in this article that operationalized the construct, 18 have used the aforementioned scale in various forms—full scale, shortened version or modified version.

The first three items of the scale are based on tenets of FHT (Lind, 2001a) that suggest that overall justice is a global evaluation of fairness of one’s personal experiences and include items like ‘Overall, I’m treated fairly by my organization’. The next three items reflect Colquitt and Shaw’s (2005) suggestion that overall justice is a general perception of organizational fairness and might not be restricted to one’s personal experiences and includes items like ‘For the most part, this organization treats its employees fairly’. Ambrose and Schminke (2009) noted that even the shortened version of the scale (the first three items) is as reliable and effective as the full scale.

When to Use What? Taxonomy of Justice and Fairness by Colquitt and Rodell (2015)

As both four-dimensional justice model as well as overall justice concept was garnering popularity, researchers were faced with the question of the most effective way to measure justice. Further, few studies (e.g., Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Jones & Martens, 2009) started modelling ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’ as separate constructs, while traditional literature had used the terms interchangeably. Colquitt and Rodell (2015) introduced a 2 X 2 taxonomy where they distinguished between justice and fairness and stated that both can assume an overall or faceted measurement approach. They defined justice as ‘perceived adherence to rules that reflect appropriateness in decision contexts’ (p. 188), whereas fairness is a ‘global perception of appropriateness’ (p. 188). Hence, theoretically, justice leads to fairness (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Kim & Leung, 2007). Thus, justice measures would refer to conditions such as equity, consistency or respect that evokes fairness whereas measures of fairness would directly refer to global perception of fairness itself (Colquitt & Shaw, 2005).

‘Faceted justice’ approach treats distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational facets of justice as separate. In the ‘latent justice’ approach, justice is modelled as a second-order variable with the various justice facets serving as the lower order indicators. Similarly, ‘overall fairness’ approach does not emphasize the distinction between various facets of fairness. However, it is not measured as a second-order variable like latent justice. Rather, it is measured through a single scale focusing on global evaluation of fairness perceptions that might have items like ‘Overall, I’m treated fairly by my Organization’ (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009, p. 493). ‘Faceted fairness’ on the other hand, emphasizes facet distinction, however, does it through items that measure global perceptions. For instance, ‘To what extent are you fairly rewarded considering the responsibilities that you have (Price & Mueller, 1986)?’ evokes distributive fairness whereas ‘How fair or unfair are the procedures used to evaluate performance?’ (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993) evokes procedural fairness. However, Colquitt and Rodell (2015) caution about the overlap between overall fairness and faceted fairness in use of items like ‘Overall, I am treated fairly by my supervisor’ which evokes both overall fairness and interpersonal facet of faceted fairness. Thus, researchers have not been comfortable using the faceted fairness approach.

The authors also state that both faceted as well as overall approach have their own merits. Faceted approach helps us study unique variance of different justice dimensions on organizational outcomes that allows us to introduce interventions. For instance, if informational justice, and not procedural justice, is found to influence retention, an organization might decide to work on improving communication channels instead of working on procedural reforms. The overall approach, on the other hand, helps us account for unexplained variance by facets as well as account for the shared variance between facets, thus capturing the overall fairness perception in an organization. Colquitt and Rodell (2015) find the faceted or latent justice approach suitable for being an independent variable whereas overall fairness approach is better suited to be a mediator or dependent variable. That is because an independent variable such as leadership style or workplace flexibility might lead to an individual’s global perception of fairness about the workplace. The individual might not be able to distinguish between various facets of that perception. However, in case the study explores the adherence to certain justice rules, faceted justice is the obvious choice. For example, Zapata, Olsen, and Martins (2013) wanted to study if supervisors adhered to informational and interpersonal justice rules better if they perceived higher trust in their subordinates. In this case, informational and interpersonal justice facets were the dependent variables.

Justice at Crossroads: Call for Reassessment of the Construct by Rupp et al. (2017)

In a critical assessment of the justice literature, Rupp et al. (2017) raised three vital issues with the present day operationalization of the construct. First, the authors fear that the widely accepted Colquitt’s (2001) measure for organizational justice might not be sufficiently representing an employee’s total experience of (in)justice and that researchers might be committing ‘reification’ by sincerely adhering to the standard operationalization method and discouraging any other upcoming forms such as overall justice, event-entity-based justice or multifoci justice from joining mainstream research. ‘Reification’ describes the phenomenon of treating an operationalization of a construct as the construct itself and forgetting that the experience of the construct might be context specific and might be beyond the measures used to assess it (Thomason, 1982). Second, the authors highlighted theoretical aspects that have been neglected in conceptualization of the justice facets, thus, narrowing the scope of the construct. For instance, due importance has not been given to theories such as social comparison and norms beyond equity (i.e., equality and need) in forming measures of distributive justice. Similarly, the procedural justice criteria have neither been validated enough nor have their relevance been tested across different contexts and time. Further, interactional justice has always been studied along with distributive and procedural justice and explicit measure for the construct has never been developed. Hence, an exploration of how different accounts and violation principles weighed in different contexts and what effects their interactions produced has been neglected. Also, not much weightage has been given to the non-comparative form of interactional justice (Bies, 2015) that constitutes universal aspects such as truth, freedom and dignity that is independent of others’ experiences.

Third, the authors focus on the changing workplace scenario characterized by contingent workers, cultural diversity, virtual work teams, and enhanced digital connectivity with stakeholders within and even outside the organizations. In such situation, an employee is no longer working under one boss or one organization. Further, information from and interaction with multiple accounts is influencing justice perceptions. Employees are no more only concerned about self-justice; rather they perceive future workplace (in)justice by seeing what is happening to their co-workers and also to third parties such as customers and vendors associated with their organizations. Shapiro and Kirkman (2001) term this as ‘anticipatory justice’, which has significant influence on actual experiential justice (Rodell & Colquitt, 2009). Linking this to FHT, one can argue that even indirect experiences at workplace significantly influence the fairness heuristics formed by a modern-day employee. The formal communication channel is no longer the only way for an employee to make his voice heard. Rather, there are multiple voice channels in the form of social media platforms or blogging forums. However, the current justice measures do not consider the influence of multiple organizational identities, voice channels or accounts on justice perception. Hence, Rupp et al. (2017) argue that the current measures might not be suitable to capture the experiences of a modern-day employee. Of course, some agencies like the public sector units in India still continue to be structured and operate in the conventional fashion and might be suitable for the already established justice measure.

Finally, Rupp et al. (2017) suggest that one way to address the problems could be rewording Colquitt’s (2001) scales to reflect present workplace dynamics. However, a broader and a more person-centric approach to measuring justice, through experiential qualitative methods such as autobiographical narrative, ethnography, physiological measures such as heart rate or blood pressure, experience sampling, diary, online content analysis and so on would more aptly capture the justice perception of today’s employees. These methods focus on the non-comparative, within-person’ experiences of justice. They also highlight an individual’s temporal perspective of justice that is subject to change with time and events as they unfold in one’s life, an aspect that has been neglected in the largely cross-sectional justice research done until date.

Conclusion

Justice has traversed long ways—wandering on paths of divergence towards the roads that converged. Today, it stands on the verge of being reassessed on its construct validity. There are questions on its suitability to modern-day workplace dynamics and its completeness in terms of encompassing the full essence of the theories it is based on and totality of employee’s justice perceptions. From here, we believe that justice will move on four different parallel paths, wherein, researchers would measure the two constructs-faceted justice and overall fairness, each in two ways-quantitatively and qualitatively, thereby, leading to the simultaneous co-existence of four models of justice measurement. Research using multifoci justice facets, justice climates and multilevel models of justice will also see growth in the coming years. We hope the readers of this article will benefit from a comprehensive review of justice literature until date and will add on to the review when justice finds a new path to its unstoppable journey, which might already be happening in the background, somewhere. As Frost (1969) would have described, ‘Organizational justice has miles to go before it can sleep’.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Footnotes

Dominant Measurement Scales for Organizational Justice Used across Time

References

Adams

J. S.

(1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Adams

J. S.

, & Rosenbaum

W. B.

(1962). The relationship of worker productivity to cognitive dissonance about wage inequities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46(3), 161–164.

Ambrose

M. L.

, & Arnaud

(2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually distinct? In Greenberg

& Colquitt

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (Vol. 1, pp. 59–84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ambrose

M. L.

, & Schminke

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

Ambrose

M. L.

, Wo

D. X. H.

, & Griffith

M. D.

(2015). Overall justice: Past, present, and future. In Ambrose

& Cropanzano

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (Vol. 1, pp. 109–135). London: Oxford University Press.

Aquino

, Tripp

T. M.

, & Bies

R. J.

(2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 653–668.

Aryee

, Walumbwa

F. O.

, Mondejar

, & Chu

C. W.

(2015). Accounting for the influence of overall justice on job performance: Integrating self-determination and social exchange theories. Journal of Management Studies, 52(2), 231–252.

Barclay

L. J.

, & Kiefer

(2014). Approach or avoid? Exploring overall justice and the differential effects of positive and negative emotions. Journal of Management, 40(7), 1857–1898.

Barclay

L. J.

, Skarlicki

D. P.

, & Pugh

S. D.

(2005). Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 629–643.

10.

Beugre

C. D.

, & Baron

R. A.

(2001). Perceptions of systemic justice: The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(2), 324–339.

11.

Bies

R. J.

(1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In Cummings

L. L.

& Staw

B. M.

(Eds.), Research in organization behaviour (Vol. 9, pp. 289–319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

12.

Bies

R. J.

(2001). Interactional (in) justice: The sacred and the profane. In Greenberg

& Cropanzano

(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (Vol. 1, pp. 85–108). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

13.

Bies

R. J.

(2015). Interactional justice: Looking backward, looking forward. In Cropanzano

& Ambrose

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (Vol. 1, pp. 89–107). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

14.

Bies

R. J.

, & Moag

J. F.

(1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In Lewicki

R. J.

, Sheppard

B. H.

, & Bazerman

M. H.

(Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

15.

Bies

R. J.

, & Shapiro

D. L.

(1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 199–218.

16.

Bies

R. J.

, & Shapiro

D. L.

(1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 676–685.

17.

Bies

R. J.

, & Tripp

T. M.

(2001). A passion for justice: The rationality and morality of Revenge. In Cropanzano

(Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 197–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

18.

Blader

S. L.

, & Tyler

T. R.

(2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a ‘fair’ process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747–758.

19.

Blader

S. L.

, & Tyler

T. R.

(2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra role behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445–464.

20.

Blau

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

21.

Bobocel

D. R.

(2013). Coping with unfair events constructively or destructively: The effects of overall justice and self–other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 720–731.

22.

Bobocel

D. R.

, & Holmvall

C. M.

(2001). Are interactional justice and procedural justice different? Framing the debate. In Gilliland

S. W.

, Steiner

, & Skarlicki

D. P.

(Eds.), Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (Vol. 1, pp. 85–108). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

23.

Brockner

(2002). Making sense of procedural fairness: How high procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome favorability. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 58–76.

24.

Brockner

, DeWitt

R. L.

, Grover

, & Reed

(1990). When it is especially important to explain why: Factors affecting the relationship between managers’ explanations of a layoff and survivors’ reactions to the layoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(5), 389–407.

25.

Burton

J. P.

, Sablynski

C. J.

, & Sekiguchi

(2008). Linking justice, performance, and citizenship via leader–member exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23(1/2), 51–61.

26.

Choi

(2008). Event justice perceptions and employees’ reactions: Perceptions of social entity justice as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 513–528.

27.

Cojuharenco

, Shteynberg

, Gelfand

, & Schminke

(2012). Self-construal and unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 447–461.

28.

Cole

M. S.

, Bernerth

J. B.

, Walter

, & Holt

D. T.

(2010). Organizational justice and individuals’ withdrawal: Unlocking the influence of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 367–390.

29.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.

30.

Colquitt

J. A.

, Conlon

E. D.

, Wesson

J. M.

, Porter

C. O. L. H.

, & Ng

K. Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445.

31.

Colquitt

J. A.

, Greenberg

, & Zapata-Phelan

C. P.

(2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In Greenberg

& Colquitt

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (Vol. 1, pp. 3–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

32.

Colquitt

J. A.

, & Rodell

J. B.

(2015). Measuring justice and fairness. In Cropanzano

& Ambrose

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (Vol. 1, pp. 187–202). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

33.

Colquitt

J. A.

, & Shaw

J. C.

(2005). How organizational justice should be measured. In Greenberg

& Colquitt

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (Vol. 1, pp. 113–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

34.

Coyle-Shapiro

, & Dhensa

R. K.

(2011). Justice in the twenty-first-century organization. In Townsend

& Wilinson

(Eds.), Research handbook on the future of work and employment relations (Vol. 1, pp. 385–404). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

35.

Cropanzano

, Bowen

D. E.

, & Gilliland

S. W.

(2007). The management of organizational justice. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34–48.

36.

Cropanzano

, Byrne

Z. S.

, Bobocel

D. R.

, & Rupp

D. E.

(2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164–209.

37.

Cropanzano

, & Folger

(1989). Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: Beyond equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 293–299.

38.

Cropanzano

, Li

, & Benson

(2011). Peer justice and teamwork process. Group & Organization Management, 36(5), 567–596.

39.

Cropanzano

, Walumbwa

F. O.

, & Aryee

(2013, April). The creation and consequences of work unit fairness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.

40.

Dailey

R. C.

, & Kirk

D. J.

(1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45(3), 305–317.

41.

Day

N. E.

(2011). Perceived pay communication justice and pay satisfaction. Employee Relations, 33(5), 476–497.

42.

De Roeck

, Marique

, Stinglhamber

, & Swaen

(2014). Understanding employees’ responses to corporate social responsibility: Mediating roles of overall justice and organisational identification. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(1), 91–112.

43.

Deutsch

(1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–149.

44.

Fassina

N. E.

, Jones

D. A.

, & Uggerslev

K. L.

(2008). Meta-analytic tests of relationships between organizational justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and shared variance models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(6), 293–310.

45.

Festinger

(1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson & Co.

46.

Folger

(1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined effect of ‘voice’ and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 108–119.

47.

Folger

(1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In Bierhoff

H. W.

, Cohen

R. L.

, & Greenberg

(Eds.), Justice in social relations (Vol. 1, pp. 145–162). New York, NY: Plenum.

48.

Folger

(1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In Masters

J. C.

& Smith

W. P.

(Eds.), Social comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 183–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

49.

Folger

, & Bies

R. J.

(1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 79–90.

50.

Folger

, & Cropanzano

(1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.

51.

Folger

, & Cropanzano

(2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In Greenberg

& Cropanzano

(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (Vol. 1, pp. 89–118). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

52.

Folger

, & Greenberg

(1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 3(1), 141–183.

53.

Folger

, & Konovsky

M. A.

(1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115–130.

54.

Folger

, & Martin

(1986). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(6), 531–546.

55.

Folger

, Rosenfield

, Grove

, & Corkran

(1979). Effects of ‘voice’ and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(12), 2253–2261.

56.

Folger

, Rosenfield

, Hays

, & Grove

(1978). Justice vs justification effects on productivity: Reconciling equity and dissonance findings. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 465–473.

57.

Frost

(1969). Stopping by woods on a snowy evening. In Frost

& Lathem

E. C.

(Eds.). The poetry of Robert Frost: Collected poems, complete and unabridged (p. 224). New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co., Inc.

58.

Goodstein

, & Aquino

(2010). And restorative justice for all: Redemption, forgiveness, and reintegration in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 624–628.

59.

Greenberg

(1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340–342.

60.

Greenberg

(1987a). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9–22.

61.

Greenberg

(1987b). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 55–61.

62.

Greenberg

(1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561–568.

63.

Greenberg

(1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432.

64.

Greenberg

(1993a). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 54(1), 81–103.

65.

Greenberg

(1993b). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In Cropanzano

(Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (Vol. 1, pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

66.

Greenberg

(2001). Setting the justice agenda: Seven unanswered questions about ‘what, why, and how’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 210–219.

67.

Greenberg

, Bies

R. J.

, & Eskew

D. E.

(1991). Establishing fairness in the eye of the beholder: Managing impressions of organizational justice. In Giacalone

& Rosenfeld

(Eds.), Applied impression management: How image making affects managerial decisions (pp. 111–132). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publishing.

68.

Greenberg

, & Folger

(1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In Paulus

P. B.

(Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 235–256). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

69.

Haines

V. Y.

, Patient

D. L.

, & Marchand

(2018). Systemic justice and burnout: A multilevel model. Human Resource Management Journal, 28(1), 92–111.

70.

Hauenstein

N. M. T.

, McGonigle

, & Flinder

S. W.

(2001). A meta-analysis of the relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice: Implications for justice research. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13(1), 39–56.

71.

Hollensbe

E. C.

, Khazanchi

, & Masterson

S. S.

(2008). How do I assess if my supervisor and organization are fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based justice perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1099–1116.

72.

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.

73.

Homans

G. C.

(1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

74.

Jawahar

I. M.

(2007). The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal reactions. Journal of Labor Research, 28(4), 735–754.

75.

Jones

D. A.

, & Martens

M. L.

(2009). The mediating role of overall fairness and the moderating role of trust certainty in justice–criteria relationships: The formation and use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1025–1051.

76.

Joy

V. L.

, & Witt

L. A.

(1992). Delay of gratification as a moderator of the procedural justice distributive justice relationship. Group & Organization Management, 17(3), 297–308.

77.

Kim

H. S.

(2007). A multilevel study of antecedents and a mediator of employee–organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 167–197.

78.

Kim

S. L.

, Kim

, & Yun

(2017). What do we need for creativity? The interaction of perfectionism and overall justice on creativity. Personnel Review, 46(1), 154–167.

79.

Kim

T. Y.

(2004). The effects of cognitive appraisal on justice judgments: How and why do Asians differ from United States Americans? Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 2671.

80.

Kim

T. Y.

, & Leung

(2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 83–95.

81.

Lavelle

J. J.

, Rupp

D. E.

, & Brockner

(2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management, 33(6), 841–866.

82.

Lazauskaitė-Zabielskė

(2017). Overall justice of organization: From decision fairness to positive attitude of employees. Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, 77(1), 81–99

83.

Leventhal

G. S.

(1976a). Fairness in social relationships. In Thibaut

J. W.

, Spence

J. T.

, & Carson

R. C.

(Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 211–239). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

84.

Leventhal

G. S.

(1976b). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 91–131.

85.

Leventhal

G. S.

(1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In Gergen

, Greenberg

, & Willis

(Eds.). Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Plenum.

86.

Leventhal

G. S.

, Karuza

, & Fry

W. R.

(1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In Mikula

(Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–219). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

87.

, Zhang

, & Zhou

(2017). A multilevel analysis of the role of interactional justice in promoting knowledge-sharing behavior: The mediated role of organizational commitment. Industrial Marketing Management, 62, 226–233.

88.

Lind

E. A.

(2001a). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In Greenberg

& Cropanzano

(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

89.

Lind

E. A.

(2001b). Thinking critically about justice judgments. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 220–226.

90.

Lind

E. A.

, Kulik

C. T.

, Ambrose

, & de Vera Park

M. V.

(1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 224–251.

91.

Lind

E. A.

, & Tyler

T. R.

(1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum.

92.

Lind

E. A.

, & Van den Bos

(2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181–223.

93.

Lord

R. G.

, & Hohenfeld

J. A.

(1979). Longitudinal field assessment of equity effects on the performance of major league baseball players. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(1), 19.

94.

Mannix

E. A.

, Neale

M. A.

, & Northcraft

G. B.

(1995). Equity, equality, or need? The effects of organizational culture on the allocation of benefits and burdens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(3), 276–286.

95.

Mansour-Cole

D. M.

, & Scott

S. G.

(1998). Hearing it through the grapevine: The influence of source, leader-relations, and legitimacy on survivors’ fairness perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 51(1), 25–54.

96.

Martocchio

J. J.

, & Judge

T. A.

(1995). When we don’t see eye to eye: Discrepancies between supervisors and subordinates in absence disciplinary decisions. Journal of Management, 21(2), 251–278.

97.

Marzucco

, Marique

, Stinglhamber

, De Roeck

, & Hansez

(2014). Justice and employee attitudes during organizational change: The mediating role of overall justice. European Review of Applied Psychology, 64(6), 289–298.

98.

Masterson

S. S.

, Lewis

, Goldman

B. M.

, & Taylor

M. S.

(2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738–748.

99.

Mayer

D. M.

, Bardes

, & Piccolo

R. F.

(2008). Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(2), 180–197.

100.

Moorman

R. H.

(1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845–855.

101.

Naumann

S. E.

, & Bennett

(2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 881–889.

102.

O’Reilly

, Aquino

, & Skarlicki

(2016). The lives of others: Third parties’ responses to others’ injustice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 171–189.

103.

Patel

, Budhwar

, & Varma

(2012). Overall justice, work group identification and work outcomes: Test of moderated mediation process. Journal of World Business, 47(2), 213–222.

104.

Price

J. L.

, & Mueller

C. W.

(1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

105.

Pritchard

R. D.

(1969). Equity theory: A review and critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 176–211.

106.

Rawls

(1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

107.

Reichers

A. E.

(1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 465–476.

108.

Roberts

, & Markel

K. S.

(2001). Claiming in the name of fairness: Organizational justice and the decision to file for workplace injury compensation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(4), 332–347.

109.

Rodell

J. B.

, & Colquitt

J. A.

(2009). Looking ahead in times of uncertainty: The role of anticipatory justice in an organizational change context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 989–1002.

110.

Rodell

J. B.

, Colquitt

J. A.

, & Baer

M. D.

(2017). Is adhering to justice rules enough? The role of charismatic qualities in perceptions of supervisors’ overall fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 140, 14–28.

111.

Rupp

D. E.

, & Cropanzano

(2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 925–946.

112.

Rupp

D. E.

, Shapiro

D. L.

, Folger

, Skarlicki

D. P.

, & Shao

(2017). A critical analysis of the conceptualization and measurement of organizational justice: Is It time for reassessment? Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 919–959.

113.

Rupp

D. E.

, & Spencer

(2006). When customers lash out: The effects of customer interactional injustice on emotional labor and the mediating role of discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 971–978.

114.

Schminke

, Arnaud

, & Taylor

(2015). Ethics, values, and organizational justice: Individuals, organizations, and beyond. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(3), 727–736.

115.

Shapiro

D. L.

(2001). The death of justice theory is likely if theorists neglect the ‘wheels’ already invented and the voices of the injustice victims. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 235–242.

116.

Shapiro

D. L.

, Buttner

E. H.

, & Barry

(1994). Explanations: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(3), 346–368.

117.

Shapiro

D. L.

, & Kirkman

B. L.

(2001). Anticipatory injustice: The consequences of expecting injustice in the workplace. Advances in Organizational Justice, 32(5), 152–178.

118.

Sharoni

, Tziner

, Fein

E. C.

, Shultz

, Shaul

, & Zilberman

(2012). Organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions: Do organizational culture and justice moderate their relationship? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(S1), E267–E294.

119.

Skarlicki

D. P.

, & Folger

(1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434–443.

120.

Skarlicki

D. P.

, & Latham

G. P.

(1997). Leadership training in organizational justice to increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A replication. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 617–633.

121.

Skarlicki

D. P.

, Van Jaarsveld

D. D.

, & Walker

D. D.

(2008). Getting even for customer mistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1335–1347.

122.

Soenen

, Melkonian

, & Ambrose

M. L.

(2017). To shift or not to shift? Determinants and consequences of phase shifting on justice judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 798–817.

123.

Spell

C. S.

, & Arnold

T. J.

(2007). A multi-level analysis of organizational justice climate, structure, and employee mental health. Journal of Management, 33(5), 724–751.

124.

Stouffer

S. A.

, Suchman

E. A.

, DeVinney

L. C.

, Star

S. A.

, & Williams

R. M.

Jr. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment during army life (studies in social psychology in World War II). Oxford: Princeton University Press.

125.

Swalhi

, Zgoulli

, & Hofaidhllaoui

(2017). The influence of organizational justice on job performance: The mediating effect of affective commitment. Journal of Management Development, 36(4), 542–559.

126.

Sweeney

P. D.

, & McFarlin

D. B.

(1993). Workers’ evaluation of the ‘ends’ and the ‘means’: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55(1), 23–40.

127.

Tang

T. W.

, & Tang

Y. Y.

(2012). Promoting service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors in hotels: The role of high-performance human resource practices and organizational social climates. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 885–895.

128.

Tansky

J. W.

(1993). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: What is the relationship? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3), 195–207.

129.

Thibaut

, & Walker

(1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurm Associates.

130.

Thibaut

, & Walker

(1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66(3), 541–566.

131.

Thibaut

, Walker

, LaTour

, & Houlden

(1974). Procedural justice as fairness. Stanford Law Review, 26(6), 1271–1289.

132.

Thomason

B. C.

(1982). Making sense of reification Alfred Schutz and constructionist theory. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.

133.

Tornblom

K. Y.

, & Vermunt

(1999). An integrative perspective on social justice: Distributive and procedural fairness evaluations of positive and negative outcome allocations. Social Justice Research, 12(1), 39–64.

134.

Tremblay

M. A.

(2010). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators on the relationship between leadership style, unit commitment, and turnover intentions of Canadian Forces Personnel. Military Psychology, 22(4), 510–523.

135.

Tyler

T. R.

, & Bies

R. J.

(1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In Carroll

(Ed.), Advances in applied social psychology: Business settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

136.

Tyler

T. R.

, & Blader

S. L.

(2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.

137.

Tyler

T. R.

, & Caine

(1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 642–655.

138.

Tyler

T. R.

, & Lind

E. A.

(1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). New York, NY: Academic Press.

139.

Van den Bos

, & Lind

E. A.

(2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

140.

Van den Bos

, Vermunt

, & Wilke

H. A. M.

(1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 95–104.

141.

Viswesvaran

, & Ones

D. S.

(2002). Examining the construct of organizational justice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 193–203.

142.

Walker

, LaTour

, Lind

E. A.

, & Thibaut

(1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4(4), 295–310.

143.

Walumbwa

F. O.

, Cropanzano

, & Hartnell

C. A.

(2009). Organizational justice, voluntary learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of identification and leader-member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1103–1126.

144.

Walumbwa

F. O.

, Hartnell

C. A.

, & Misati

(2017). Does ethical leadership enhance group learning behavior? Examining the mediating influence of group ethical conduct, justice climate, and peer justice. Journal of Business Research, 72, 14–23.

145.

Wang

, Liao

, Xia

, & Chang

(2010). The impact of organizational justice on work performance: Mediating effects of organizational commitment and leader-member exchange. International Journal of Manpower, 31(6), 660–677.

146.

Welbourne

T. M.

, Balkin

D. B.

, & Gomez-Mejia

L. R.

(1995). Gainsharing and mutual monitoring: A combined agency-organizational justice interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 881–899.

147.

Werner

, & Mero

N. P.

(1999). Fair or foul? The effects of external, internal, and employee equity on changes in performance of major league baseball players. Human Relations, 52(10), 1291–1311.

148.

Whiteside

D. B.

, & Barclay

L. J.

(2013). Echoes of silence: Employee silence as a mediator between overall justice and employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 251–266.

149.

Whitman

D. S.

, Caleo

, Carpenter

N. C.

, Horner

M. T.

, & Bernerth

J. B.

(2012). Fairness at the collective level: A meta-analytic examination of the consequences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 776–791.

150.

Zapata

C. P.

, Olsen

J. E.

, & Martins

L. L.

(2013). Social exchange from the supervisor’s perspective: Employee trustworthiness as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 1–12.