Employees,Supervisors,and Workplace Mediation

Abstract

This study explores the experience of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice in workplace mediation in a public organization. The results show that there are significant differences between employees’ and supervisors’ experiences of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice. Moreover, the results indicate that the quality of participants’ interactions in mediation is significantly related to the quality of the mediated outcome in terms of settlement or case resolution. When disputants experience interpersonal justice with each other during mediation, they are more likely to reach a full resolution to the dispute. When disputants corroborate each other’s reports of their own behaviors during mediation, they are also more likely to achieve settlement of the mediation. Disputants who received an apology from the other party were more likely to report a settlement to the dispute. In sum, this field test supports the theory of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice and provides evidence that it is an important element in the mediated resolution of a workplace dispute.

Keywords

grievance issues mediation workplace dispute resolution interactional justice

Introduction

Organizational justice explores the role of fairness as it relates to the workplace and how perceptions of fairness affect behavior within organizations (Greenberg, 1987). In general, organizational justice researchers employ the distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal dimensions of justice to explain perceptions of fairness with organizational processes and procedures. Although some scholars have explored disputants’ perceptions of distributive and procedural justice in third-party dispute processes, such as mediation, arbitration, and nonunion grievance systems (e.g., Anderson & Bingham, 1997; Austin & Tobiasen, 1984; Blancero, DelCampo, & Marron, 2010; Bingham, 1997; Bingham, Chesmore, Moon, & Napoli, 2000; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Shapiro & Brett, 1993; Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996), no one has examined all factors of organizational justice within the context of workplace mediation.

This study seeks to build on the organizational justice literature by exploring the relationships among disputants’ roles in mediation, their experiences of justice during the mediation process, and the quality of the mediated outcome in terms of settlement. Although the context for this study is a transformative mediation program at the United States Postal Service (USPS), the findings have important implications for managers in many different organizational settings. Moreover, this study is unique in its focus. In a recent examination of trends in human resource management in three of the field’s leading journals (Review of Public Personnel Administration, Human Resource Management, and International Journal of Human Resource Management), Perry (2010) examined titles, abstracts, and keywords for articles. He found only one article on dispute processes, and five articles on dispute resolution; he listed no articles as specifically being focused on organizational justice, though the concept was likely embedded in many of the journal articles. This quantitative study will increase our understanding of the role of organizational justice, especially interpersonal justice, in workplace mediation settlements in a public organization.

Organizational Justice

Recent decades have seen the proliferation of research on organizational justice, which is focused on understanding the role of fairness in the workplace (Greenberg, 1987). Specifically, organizational justice is “concerned with the ways in which employees determine if they have been treated fairly in their jobs and the ways in which those determinations influence other work-related variables” (Moorman, 1991, p. 845). In general, empirical research demonstrates a positive relationship between justice perceptions and the organizational citizenship behaviors of employees, in terms of workplace productivity, performance, and other measures (Greenberg & Barling, 1996; Moorman, 1991; Shapiro & Brett, 1993). In contrast, research shows that when organizational decisions and managerial actions are believed to be unfair or unjust, the affected employee(s) experience feelings of anger, outrage, and resentment (Bies, 1987; Folger, 1987, 1993; Sheppard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992) and may engage in acts of retribution or retaliation (Greenberg & Scott, 1996; Jawahar, 2002; Sheppard et al., 1992; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Other researchers focused specifically on federal employees have found links between perceptions about the fairness of managerial decision making and the propensity of federal government employees to join unions and pay dues (Rubin, 2011) and explored connections between perceived fairness of performance appraisal on intrinsic motivation (Kim & Rubianty, 2011). Although debates about the dimensionality and measurement of organizational justice continue (e.g., Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Greenberg, 1990b, 1993a; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Skitka, Winquist, & Hutchinson, 2003), most researchers accept and use Greenberg’s (1993b) four-factor model of organizational justice, which includes distributive justice, procedural justice, and two classes of interactional justice (interpersonal justice and informational justice). Given the number of quantitative reviews (e.g., Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001) and qualitative reviews (e.g., Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001; Konovsky, 2000) of the organizational justice literature, we only examine briefly these four factors.

Early studies of organizational justice focused on the concept of distributive justice. Using work on equity theory (e.g., Adams, 1963, 1965; Deutsch, 1975, 1985) as a starting point, researchers asserted that perceptions of fairness in the workplace (and consequent social behavior) are conditioned by the distribution or allocation of outcomes. In essence, distributive justice holds that fairness is a function of whether an employee perceives the reward allocation decision of a supervisor or management to be fair (and favorable).

Realizing the potential implications of distributive justice, and especially equity theory, on the organizational context, researchers examined the perceived fairness of organizational outcomes (e.g., pay selection, and promotion decisions) and the relations of these justice perceptions to numerous criterion variables, such as quality and quantity of work. (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001, p. 280, citing Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978)

As social psychology research shifted from a focus on outcomes to a focus on process, so too did research on organizational justice (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). The result was the development of procedural justice, which holds that perceptions of fairness are a function of the process by which allocation decisions are made (Leventhal, 1980; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). In other words, an employee is more likely to perceive an outcome as fair, if she or he also perceives the rules and procedures of management’s decision-making process to be fair. Thus, what counts in procedural justice is not the allocation of the reward, but rather the steps taken by management to determine how to allocate the reward.

Interactional justice emerged as “an extension of procedural justice, [and] pertains to the human side of organizational practices, that is, to the way the management (or those controlling rewards and resources) is behaving toward the recipient of justice” (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001, p. 281). “In general, interactional justice reflects concerns about the fairness of the non-procedurally dictated aspects of interaction” (Nabatchi, Bingham, & Good, 2007, p. 151), such as the communication and personal conduct of management. As the concept of interactional justice developed, researchers identified two subcategories of interactional justice: informational justice and interpersonal justice (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Informational justice focuses on the explanation of decision-making procedures and the extent to which those explanations provide the information necessary to evaluate the process and its enactment (Bies, 1987; Bies & Shapiro, 1988; Greenberg, 1990b; Shapiro, 1993; Tyler & Bies, 1990), that is, “why the procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion” (Colquitt et al., 2001, p. 427). Interpersonal justice “reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect” by management during the enactment of a decision-making process.

The four factors of justice (distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal) have been used in numerous studies to examine perceptions of fairness in a variety of organizational decision-making processes, such as pay satisfaction (e.g., Jones, Scarpello, & Bergmann, 1999), perceptions of pay inequity (e.g., Greenberg, 1990a, 1993c), pay raises (e.g., Folger & Konovsky, 1989), performance appraisals (e.g., Greenberg, 1991; Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995), promotion decisions (e.g., Bobocel & Farrell, 1996), disciplinary decisions (e.g., Bennett, 1998), recruitment decisions (e.g., Bies & Shapiro, 1988), and layoffs (e.g., Brockner & Greenberg, 1990) among several others (for more comprehensive reviews of organizational justice studies, see Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Konovsky, 2000).

In general, and as these examples make clear, researchers use organizational justice to explain perceptions of fairness in a two-way relationship, where one decision maker (i.e., a supervisor or management) holds authority and control over some kind of subordinate (i.e., an employee or labor). That is, the majority of organizational justice research focuses on decision-making processes that involve “an employee and a supervisor, where the supervisor is identified as the relevant authority figure” (Nabatchi et al., 2007, p. 152). In such cases, the supervisor is taking on the legitimate role as an agent for the organization; in this capacity, she or he may not be neutral, objective, or detached from the situation in which she or he is issuing a decision. The supervisor responsible for implementing policies and/or making decisions “whether due to a lack of training or personal biases, may not administer them in the intended way” (Blancero, DelCampo, & Marron, 2010, p. 524). Moreover, these processes generally result in a decision where there is either a clear winner and loser (e.g., an employee is or is not laid off) or some kind of compromise (e.g., a pay raise is somewhere between the starting and requested salary). Although such a focus is appropriate for many organizational decisions, it is less appropriate for workplace mediation processes. This assertion, along with an explanation about the importance of examining organizational justice perceptions in workplace mediation contexts, is discussed below.

Workplace Mediation

In recent decades, organizations across the public, private, and nonprofit sectors have increasingly turned to alternative or appropriate dispute resolution (ADR) processes and programs to improve conflict management efforts. Many consider the U.S. federal government to be a leader in the ADR movement, in part because several pieces of Congressional legislation,¹ various presidential proclamations,² and attorney general guidance,³ have made ADR a “fixed feature of the federal administrative landscape” (Senger, 2000, p. 3; for histories of ADR use in the federal government, see Bingham, Nabatchi, Senger, & Jackman, 2009; Bingham & Wise, 1996; Marcus & Senger, 2001; Nabatchi, 2007; Senger, 2000, 2004). Given that ADR has a common mandate and is a matter of general policy, some have suggested that it is one area where the government is ahead of the private sector (Marcus & Senger, 2001; Senger, 2004).

The use of ADR is especially prominent for workplace disputes in federal agencies, with mediation being the preferred ADR process (Bingham & Wise, 1996; Nabatchi, 2007).⁴ Mediation is a dispute resolution process in which a neutral third party (i.e., the mediator) assists the disputants in reaching a mutually agreeable solution to the issue at hand. Given the widespread use of workplace mediation in public agencies, it is important for researchers to examine and understand participants’ experiences in these processes, and how those experiences influence the settlements of disputes. Understanding perceptions of organizational justice and fairness in formal dispute resolution procedures might aid in designing dispute systems and creating long-term positive solutions to workplace conflict. However, the application of traditional measures of organizational justice to a workplace mediation process is problematic.

Organizational Justice in the Context of Workplace Mediation

As we noted above, the literature and research on justice and fairness is well developed in organizational contexts centered on a dyadic relationship—that is, in contexts where a supervisor makes a decision affecting a subordinate.⁵ Workplace mediation, however, is not a dyadic decision-making process, rather it is a tripartite process. Mediation, by its very definition involves at least three participants: two disputants (e.g., a supervisor and an employee) and a third-party neutral (i.e., the mediator; for more discussion, see Nabatchi et al., 2007). In this case, the supervisor ceases to act as a decision maker (as an agent for the organization) and starts to act directly as a disputant. These significant changes in the decision-making context raise problems for the application of the four-factor model of organizational justice to workplace mediation. Specifically,

by failing to distinguish between the process and the third party who enacts the process, and by failing to incorporate perceptions of justice involving the other disputant, the four-factor model is inadequate as applied to workplace mediation. It fails to capture the divergent directions of interaction among the parties, the potential multiplicity of agent-referenced outcomes, and the reduced power imbalances among the organizational members (Nabatchi et al., 2007, p. 152).

Given the tripartite nature of interactions among parties in mediation, Nabatchi et al. (2007) developed and empirically tested a theoretically driven six-factor model of organizational justice in workplace mediation. The six factors are as follows:

distributive justice, which captures a disputant’s perception of the fairness of the distribution or allocation of outcomes;

procedural justice–process, which captures a disputant’s perception of the fairness of the rules and procedures that regulate the mediation process;

procedural justice–mediator, which captures a disputant’s perception of the fairness of the mediator’s performance as a professional;

informational justice, which captures a disputant’s perception of fairness of the enactment and explanation of decision-making procedures;

disputant–mediator interpersonal justice, which captures a disputant’s satisfaction with the way she or he was treated by the mediator in their interactions with each other during the mediation process; and

disputant–disputant interpersonal justice, which captures a disputant’s satisfaction with the way she or he was treated by the other disputant in their interactions with each other during the mediation process (Nabatchi et al., 2007).

In this study, we examine all six factors of justice in workplace mediation. Specifically, we explore the relationships among disputants’ roles in mediation, their experiences of justice during the mediation process, and the quality of the mediated outcome in terms of settlement.

Disputant–Disputant Interpersonal Justice

Although we examine all six factors, we are particularly interested in the effects of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice, as there is reason to believe that this may be among the most critical factors in resolving workplace disputes through mediation. Interpersonal justice highlights the role of communication and interpersonal treatment in perceptions of fairness (Bies & Moag, 1986; Bies & Shapiro, 1987). Studies have measured perceptions of interpersonal justice with questions that assess the extent to which employees perceive themselves to have been treated with dignity, respect, kindness, politeness, honesty, and consideration (e.g., Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). In addition, truthfulness, propriety of questions, and justification also appear to be important communication criteria (Bies & Moag, 1986). Research suggests that these elements of interpersonal justice also apply in a dispute resolution process. Open direct discussion can induce reciprocity among disputing parties (Brett, Shapiro, & Lytle, 1998), so that they search for more information and an understanding about opposing views and incorporate elements of that position into their own (Tjosvold & Johnson, 1978). In turn, this can promote efficient and integrative resolutions that benefit both supervisors and employees (Tjosvold, Morishima, & Belsheim, 1999).

One potential benefit of fostering disputant–disputant interpersonal justice in mediation is the creation of a higher quality mediated outcome. Research indicates that more cooperative conflict management styles (in which a meaningful amount of concern is shown for the other party) are likely to produce positive individual and organizational outcomes, whereas less cooperative styles (in which little concern is shown for the other party) frequently result in escalation of conflict and negative outcomes (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). Research also suggests that employees who perceive greater levels of organizational justice may more frequently use cooperative styles rather than adversarial styles when managing conflict with their supervisors. This expectation is based on the finding that greater levels of perceived justice are generally related to more positive work attitudes and behaviors (Lind & Tyler, 1988), and thus, possibly to more constructive conflict management behaviors.

This may also be true in mediation. Research has found that when both parties in mediation accept responsibility for the conflict, they are more likely to cooperate during the mediation and thus have a successful mediation (Poitras, 2007). Thus, when participants experience high levels of justice in mediation, especially disputant–disputant interpersonal justice, they may be more likely to feel cooperative and to want to seek resolution to their dispute. The experience of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice in mediation may have valuable spillover effects, such as higher rates of settlement. This leads to our first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Mediations with higher ratings of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice are more likely to result in settlement.

Likewise, mediation allows for the provision of accounts and explanations of actions; it is generally expected that mediation participants will listen and learn more about the other person’s perspective. As this occurs, a disputant may acknowledge the other’s perspective and feel apologetic for personal actions. Apologies are especially valuable in mediation because they can reduce expressions of anger (Baron, 1990; Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989) and help disputants distance themselves from the negative effects of their own actions (Tedeschi & Norman, 1985).

We expect that these individual measures of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice will be independently important to achieving a mediated resolution, particularly when they are corroborated by both the employee and supervisors. In other words, we expect that a mediated resolution will be more likely when both the employee and supervisor agree that the other person listened, and that both parties learned about and acknowledged the other person’s perspective, which leads to our second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Mediations with high levels of corroboration between the disputants on the disputant–disputant interpersonal justice indicators are more likely to result in settlement.

Method

Context

Before examining our data, sample, measures, and methods of analysis, it is useful to briefly discuss the context of our research: the USPS REDRESS (Resolve Employment Disputes, Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly) mediation program. The USPS REDRESS program offers an excellent context for the examination of organizational justice in workplace mediation settings. The 1970 Postal Reorganization Act transformed the 200-year-old Post Office Department into the USPS, a quasiprivate federal agency in the executive branch of the government (for a more detailed discussion, see Baxter, 1994; Nabatchi & Bingham 2010). The reorganization process, led by experts from private sector mass production and monopoly businesses, resulted in an organizational culture where conflict was the norm (Baxter, 1994; Bingham & Napoli, 1999; Nabatchi & Bingham, 2010; Napoli, 2004). Among the most visible organizational conflicts are between craft employees (i.e., labor) and their supervisors (i.e., management) because it is at this point in the USPS where productivity pressures are the greatest and where management has the most immediate power over labor (Nabatchi & Bingham, 2010). Evidence of persistent and pervasive labor-management conflict is readily found in the USPS national grievance arbitration database and in the filing rate of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints, both of which were astoundingly high particularly during the 1990s (for more information, see Nabatchi & Bingham, 2010; U.S. GAO, 1997; Bingham & Napoli, 1999).

Following criticism by the Postal Service Subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, then Postmaster General Runyon ordered that REDRESS, a pilot mediation program adopted in settlement of a class action lawsuit in the Florida Panhandle, be made available to all post offices across the nation (Nabatchi & Bingham, 2010). REDRESS has been fully institutionalized in every post office across the country since 1999, and during the period ending in 2006 was the largest employment mediation program in the world, mediating over 1,000 disputes a month (Bingham, Hallberlin, Walker, & Chung, 2009).

The nationwide REDRESS program offers postal employees the opportunity to use transformative mediation as an optional additional step in the traditional EEO process for complaints of discrimination in employment based on race, sex, national origin, ethnicity, religion, age, disability, and other protected categories. Transformative mediation is one of three widely accepted models of mediation (Bush, 2004; for a discussion about the three models of mediation, and particularly mediation in the USPS, see Nabatchi, Bingham, & Moon, 2010). The other two models, evaluative and facilitative mediation, represent more traditional, problem-solving methods of practice where the focus is on achieving an agreement that resolves the issues in dispute (Bush & Folger, 1994, 2004). In contrast, transformative mediation is not about winning, losing, or finding a compromise decision through mediation. Rather, transformation mediation seeks to foster experiences of empowerment and recognition, thereby changing how parties relate to each other and understand their respective situations (Bush & Folger, 1994, 1996, 2004; Bush & Pope, 2002). Transformative mediation often results in an agreement and settlement; however, these effects are secondary to transformation in the parties’ relationship.⁶

Data and Sample

A longitudinal evaluation project of REDRESS was conducted from 1999 to 2006. This period predates the more recent budgetary challenges facing the USPS and represents a fairly stable period economically. After every mediation session, all participants, including complainants, respondents, and their representatives, were asked to complete an exit survey that asked numerous questions about satisfaction with the various factors of organizational justice, among other queries. During the span of the evaluation project, over 270,000 exit surveys were collected from participants in REDRESS program, producing a response rate in excess of 75%. The data in this study come from those surveys of REDRESS participants.

To protect the anonymity of the mediation participants, little identifiable data were collected in the exit surveys. However, the focus of this study required us to match exit surveys completed by a complainant and a respondent in a particular mediation session. To do so, we first deleted from the sample all surveys completed by representatives. Next, we used the name of the mediator, the location (ZIP code) where the mediation took place, and the date when the mediation was conducted to match participants in the same mediation sessions. Surveys that were missing these data could not be matched, and thus were deleted from the sample. As the date only includes the month and year of mediation (not the specific day), we deleted from the sample all surveys for any month where a particular mediator in a particular ZIP code conducted more than one mediation. Finally, we limited the sample to include only cases where the complainant is an employee and the respondent is a supervisor. This left us with 4,240 paired mediation exit surveys. As discussed below, Table 1 shows the corroborated resolution status for these paired mediations.

Table 1.

Corroboration of Employee and Supervisor Reported Resolution (n = 4,240)

	Supervisor reported resolution
	Full resolution		Partial resolution		No resolution		Total
Employee reported resolution	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n
Full resolution	27	1,129	8	359	2	70	37	1,558
Partial resolution	25	1,061	16	698	3	145	44	1,904
No resolution	3	112	3	120	13	546	19	778
Total	55	2,302	27	1,558	18	761	100	4,240

Of these paired mediations, we are particularly interested in sessions where both the employee and supervisor agreed that the dispute was either fully resolved or not resolved; thus, for some analyses, we excluded from our sample any mediation sessions that resulted in partial resolutions, or where the corresponding employee and supervisor reported a different resolution status. These restrictions resulted in a final sample of 1,675 paired mediations. For interpretation of the data, it is important to note that these cases are predominantly discrimination cases and the supervisors are the target of the complaints made by the employees—in 87% of cases, the complainants are craft employees (labor), and in 97% of cases, respondents are supervisors or other management officials.

Measures

Two dependent variables are used in the analyses: (a) the mediation resolution status reported by the complainant and (b) the mediation resolution status reported by the respondent. Because we exclude mediations that were partially resolved, both of these variables are binary (1 = resolved, 0 = not resolved).

Three sets of predictor variables are used as controls in the analyses. The first set of predictor variables includes the six indices for organizational justice: (a) distributive justice, (b) procedural justice–process, (c) procedural justice–mediator, (d) informational justice, (e) disputant–mediator interpersonal justice, and (f) disputant–disputant interpersonal justice (for more information about the theoretical foundations and empirical validation of these indices, see Nabatchi et al., 2007). Each index was created by summing the participants’ responses for the survey questions that applied to the particular index and dividing by the number of questions used in the index. Questions were measured with a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree or very unsatisfied) to 5 (strongly agree or very satisfied). The survey questions used to create the indices (along with the number of the question from the survey) are included in appendix.

The second set of predictor variables includes two questions about apology, since, as discussed above, this is believed to play a role in both interpersonal justice and settlement. The questions ask the participants to indicate how strongly they agree that (a) The other person apologized to me about some aspect of the problem (Q42) and (b) I apologized to the other person about some aspect of the problem (Q43). Both apology questions use a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). These apology variables are binary and indicate whether both the employee and supervisor in a matched pair agreed that the other apologized. If both parties agreed, then the apology was corroborated and coded as 1; if the parties did not agree, then the apology was not corroborated and coded as 0.

The third set of predictor variables includes measures of the corroboration between the employee’s and supervisor’s responses to five individual questions about disputant–disputant interpersonal justice:

The other person listened to my views. (Q31)⁷

The other person learned something new about my point of view. (Q33)

I learned something new about the other person’s point of view. (Q34)

The other person acknowledged as legitimate my perspective, views, or interests. (Q36)

I acknowledged as legitimate the other person’s perspective, views, or interests. (Q38)

Again, these corroboration variables are binary and indicate whether both the employee and supervisor in a matched pair agreed with the disputant–disputant interpersonal justice indicators. For example, if both the employee and supervisor agreed or strongly agreed that the other person listened to their views (Q31), then the corroboration was coded as 1; otherwise, it was coded as 0. Likewise, for the learning variables, if the employee agreed or strongly agreed that that she or he learned something new in mediation (employee Q34) and the supervisor agreed or strongly agreed that the other person learned something new in mediation (supervisor Q33), then the corroboration variable (employee learned something) was coded as 1; otherwise, it was coded as 0. The other corroboration variables were created in the same way. Throughout the article, we refer to these survey questions the question number listed above and in appendix.

Data Analysis

The study uses a combination of descriptive and multivariate statistics for data analysis. The descriptive statistics report the corroborations among the employees’ and supervisors’ responses on the various measures of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice and apology. The multivariate regressions use employees’ or supervisors’ reported resolution status (full or none) as the dependent variable. As these are binary variables, logistic regression is used to estimate the coefficients. The logistic regressions are run with four different models, and each model is repeated separately for employees and for supervisors. Model 1 includes the six organizational justice measures as predictor variables for resolution. We exclude the distributive justice factor in Models 2 and 4. Model 3 adds the apology and corroboration variables to the six organizational justice factors. Model 4 repeats this model with distributive justice excluded.

There are several related reasons for excluding distributive justice from Models 2 and 4. First, much of the research on organizational justice in third-party dispute processes uses a different indicator for resolution—whether the employee won, lost, or compromised in the outcome. In these analyses, this outcome measure is a control or predictor variable and distributive justice is the dependent variable (see, for example, Blancero, DelCampo, & Marron, 2010). That is, such research generally seeks to explain how the nature of the resolution, and the processes used to achieve a resolution, contribute to distributive justice perceptions. Our study is different in that we flip these variables in the regression models—we explore distributive justice as a predictor variable for resolution.

Second, to our knowledge, no other organizational justice studies have looked at matched pairs of disputants in the same cases. In much of the other organizational justice research, one disputant’s win is the other disputant’s loss. This is not the case in the context we study here. Moreover, we are interested in what justice factors predict when both disputants will report a full resolution of the dispute. For this study, we ask only whether there was a resolution, not who made out best in the settlement.

Finally, there is collinearity among the predictor variables. There is a long debate in the literature as to the direction of causality for distributive justice (e.g., Skitka et al., 2003). Do people settle because they judge the outcome to be fair? Or, do they perceive they have received distributive justice because they settled? Because the relationship between perceptions of distributive justice and resolution is so strong, it obscures the impact of other factors. We show models with and without the distributive justice factor to illustrate its effect, noting that Models 2 and 4, which do not contain distributive justice, better represent the data.

We also include one table with the predicted probabilities of settlement based on the previously run logistic models (specifically Model 4 for employees and supervisors). These probabilities were calculated using the prvalue Stata command discussed in Long and Freese (2003). When these probabilities are calculated, all the variables in the model are held constant at their mean value unless otherwise indicated.

Results

Table 2 shows the corroborations on the pooled “strongly agree” and “agree” responses among matched employees and supervisors. The first column reports the percentage and number of employees that strongly agreed or agreed with the disputant–disputant interpersonal justice and apology measures. The second column reports the same information for supervisors, and the third column reports the number and percentage of paired mediations where both the employee and supervisor strongly agreed or agreed on that measure.

Table 2.

Employee and Supervisor Corroborations on Interpersonal Indicators Number/Percentage That Agree or Strongly Agree

	Employee (n = 4,240)		Supervisor (n = 4,240)		Employee and supervisor (n = 4,240)
	Strongly agree/agree		Strongly agree/agree		Strongly agree/agree
	%	n	%	n	%	N
Other person listened (Employee Q31, Supervisor Q31)	76	3,240	77	3,287	62	2,634
Employee learned (Employee Q34, Supervisor Q33)	60	2,543	62	2,644	42	1,790
Supervisor learned (Employee Q33, Supervisor Q34)	64	2,724	65	2,737	45	1,923
Employee acknowledged (Employee Q38, Supervisor Q36)	70	2,949	54	2,281	42	1,776
Supervisor acknowledged (Employee Q36, Supervisor Q38)	57	2,412	77	3,257	47	2,011
Employee apologized (Employee Q43, Supervisor Q42)	28	1,193	19	796	10	419
Supervisor apologized (Employee Q42, Supervisor Q43)	36	1,517	36	1,542	22	920

For example, the first row of Table 2 shows that in the paired mediations, 76% of employees (employee Q31) and 77% of supervisors (supervisor Q31) strongly agreed or agreed that the other person listened during mediation. However, both the employee and supervisor strongly agreed or agreed that the other person listened in only 62% of the paired mediations. This number represents a cross-tabulation of the matched employee and supervisor responses to Q31. This means that in 14% (76% minus 62%) of the mediations, the employee strongly agreed or agreed that the other person listened, but the supervisor was neutral or disagreed. Similarly, in 15% (77% minus 62%) of the mediations, the supervisor strongly agreed or agreed that the other person listened, but the employee was either neutral or disagreed that the other person listened. The other rows in Table 2 can be interpreted in the same way for the survey questions indicated.

Table 2 shows that among paired mediations, the listening variable has the highest level of corroboration at 62% for both employees and supervisors. Thus, in more than half of the paired mediations, both the employee and supervisor believed that the other person listened. In slightly less than half of the mediations, both employees and supervisors believed that they and the other person learned something new in mediation or acknowledged the other person’s position as legitimate. The lowest level of corroboration is on the apology variables. In 28% of the paired mediations, the employee strongly agreed or agreed that she or he apologized in mediation (employee Q43), whereas 19% of supervisors strongly agreed or agreed that the employee apologized in mediation (supervisor Q42). However, in only 10% of the paired mediations did the employee and supervisor both agree or strongly agree that that employee apologized in mediation (based on a cross-tabulation of employee Q43 and supervisor Q42). Likewise, in 36% of the paired mediations, the supervisor strongly agreed or agreed that she or he apologized in mediation (supervisor Q43) and 36% of employees strongly agreed or agreed that the supervisor apologized in mediation (employee Q42). However, in only 22% of the paired mediations did both parties strongly agree or agree that the supervisor apologized in mediation (based on a cross-tabulation of employee Q42 and supervisor Q43).

Table 1 presents the corroborations on the two dependent variables, the employees’ and supervisors’ reported resolution status of the mediation (full, partial, or none). There is a substantial amount of corroboration in resolution status. In 27% of the mediations, both the employee and supervisor reported the mediation as fully resolved. In 16% of the mediations, both the employee and supervisor reported the mediation as partially resolved. In 13% of the mediations both the employee and supervisor reported the mediation as not resolved. This means that in over half of the mediations, or 56% (27% plus 16% plus 13%), the employees and supervisors agreed about, or corroborated, the final resolution status of the mediation. In some instances, however, employees and supervisors did not agree on the final status of the mediation. For instance, the first column shows that in 25% of the mediations, the supervisor reported a full resolution but the employee reported only a partial resolution, and in 3% of the mediations, the supervisor reported a full resolution but the employee reported no resolution.

The multivariate analysis focuses on the 1,675 mediations with a corroborated resolution status—of these, 1,129 were corroborated resolved mediations and 546 were corroborated unresolved mediations. Table 3 shows the odds ratios for the logistic regressions on resolution status. Results for all four models are shown, and each model is run separately for employees and supervisors. Before discussing the results in this table, it is useful to explain the interpretation of odds ratios. The odds ratios represent the change in the odds of the dependent variable happening while holding the other variables constant. If an odds ratio is greater than one, there is a positive relationship between the variables, that is, a one-unit increase in the predictor variable (holding all other variables constant) makes a higher score on the dependent variable more likely. An odds ratio between 0 and 1 means there is a negative relationship between the variables, that is, a one-unit increase in the predictor variable (holding all other variables constant) is associated with a lower score on the dependent variable.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Results on Mediation Resolution Collaborated Fully Resolved or Unresolved Mediations

	Employees				Supervisors
	Model 1: Organizational justice indices	Model 2: DJ removed	Model 3: With apology and corroboration variables	Model 4: DJ removed	Model 1: Organizational justice indices	Model 2: DJ removed	Model 3: With apology and corroboration	Model 4: DJ removed
Distributive justice index	15.98***	—	16.59***	—	4.83***	—	4.75***	—
Procedural justice–process index	0.44**	2.55***	0.35***	2.14***	0.44***	1.10	0.45***	1.11
Procedural justice–mediator index	1.10	0.99	1.15	1.06	0.72	0.81	0.68	0.75
Informational justice index	1.29*	1.24**	1.36*	1.18	1.08	1.01	1.54	0.99
Disputant–mediator interpersonal justice index	0.67*	0.84	0.70	0.83	0.87	0.85	0.88	0.89
Disputant–disputant interpersonal justice index	2.93***	5.95***	1.06	2.27***	3.20***	5.33***	0.96	1.55**
Other person apologized			1.15	1.31**			1.21	1.31**
I apologized			0.92	0.98			1.01	0.88
Corroboration variables
Listened			2.65***	1.92***			3.12***	2.61***
Employee learned			1.29	1.21			1.59*	1.56*
Supervisor learned			1.59	1.18			1.50	1.30
Employee acknowledged			2.02*	2.16***			1.40	1.77**
Supervisor acknowledged			1.88*	2.09***			3.87***	4.02***
Employee apologized			1.86	2.18			1.53	1.11
Supervisor apologized			1.62	1.25			2.25*	2.54**
N	1,675	1,675	1,675	1,675	1,675	1,675	1,675	1,675
R ²	.70	.37	.73	.44	.39	.25	.51	.39
LR χ²	1,481***	789***	1547***	926***	834***	525***	1072***	819***

Note: DJ = distributive justice; LR = likelihood ratio.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3 shows that in all the models for both employees and supervisors the distributive justice index is strongly and positively related to the odds of reporting a full resolution to the mediation (p < .001). Although this finding is expected, the results for procedural justice–process in Models 1 and 3 for both employees and supervisors are not. In Models 1 and 3 (which contain all of the organizational justice factors), the procedural justice–process index is associated with lower odds of reporting a full resolution to the case. For instance, in Model 1 for employees, the coefficient for the procedural justice–process index is .44 (p < .001), which means that the odds of reporting a full resolution drop when there are higher scores on this index. This result stands starkly against almost all organizational justice research and suggests that there is collinearity the variables—there is a strong relationship between distributive justice and procedural justice–process in the analyses, and distributive justice is strongly correlated to the resolution status of the case. To address this problem, and for reasons explained above, we drop the distributive justice factor from Models 2 and 4. In these models, the procedural justice–process index is positive and significant for employees (p < .001) and insignificant for supervisors. Thus, when distributive justice is removed from the analysis, the procedural justice–process index behaves consistently with the vast body of literature.

The procedural justice–mediator index is not statistically significant in any of the regression models. The disputant–mediator interpersonal justice index is only significant in Model 4 for employees. These results are not surprising given the suppressed role of the mediator in transformative mediation.⁸ The mediator is facilitating communication in the process, but allowing the disputants to structure the mediation, set ground rules, and choose where to take the conversation.

The informational justice index is statistically significant in three of the four employee models (p < .05), suggesting that the explanation of decision-making procedures is an important factor in resolving disputes for employees, but not supervisors. Again, this is not surprising because in the overwhelming majority of REDRESS cases, the employee is the complaint filer.

Disputant–disputant interpersonal justice is positive and significant in Models 1, 2, and 4 for both employees and supervisors (p < .001). In fact, the odds ratios for this index are quite large. For instance, in Model 1 for employees, the odds ratio is 2.93 (p < .001), which represents a 107% increase in the odds of an employee reporting a full resolution. In Model 3 for both employees and supervisors, many of the individual corroboration variables are statistically significant. This suggests that corroboration of these individual measures is related to resolution, but that the overall disputant–disputant interpersonal justice index makes no independent contribution to resolution status above and beyond these effects in the Model 3 regressions. However, when distributive justice is removed in Model 4, the disputant–disputant interpersonal justice index is again positive and significant for both employees (p < .001) and supervisors (p < .01). When taken together, these results suggest that the experience of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice between the complainant and respondent is important to achieving a full resolution in a workplace dispute. These results support our first hypothesis, namely that mediations with higher ratings of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice are more likely to result in settlement.

This finding is bolstered when looking at the corroboration variables in Models 3 and 4. For employees, corroboration of the listening variable was associated with full resolution (odds ratio = 2.65 in Model 3 and 1.92 in Model 4, p < .001). Agreement that the employee and supervisor acknowledged the other’s position as being legitimate was also significantly related to resolution for the employees (odds ratio = 2.02 in Model 3 and 2.15 in Model 4, p < .05). For the supervisors, agreement that the other person listened was significantly related to resolution (odds ratio = 3.12 in Model 3 and 2.61 in Model 4, p < .001). Other corroborations related to the odds of settlement for supervisors were agreement that the employee learned something new, that the supervisor acknowledged the other’s position as being legitimate, and the supervisor apologizing. Corroboration of these interpersonal justice measures has a strong, positive effect on reported mediation resolution for both employees and supervisors. These findings support our second hypothesis—mediations with high levels of corroboration between the disputants on the disputant–disputant interpersonal justice indicators are more likely to result in settlement.

To make the relationships among disputant–disputant interpersonal justice index, corroborations of individual disputant–disputant interpersonal justice measures, and settlement more clear, we calculated the predicted probabilities of settlement based on degree of corroboration on the disputant–disputant interpersonal justice variables. Table 4 reports the predicted probabilities of resolution based on the corroboration variables (holding disputant–disputant interpersonal justice and all other variables constant at their means). No corroboration is reflected as a score of 0, and full corroboration is reflected as a score of 1. The results show that for both employees and supervisors, corroboration about the specific dimensions of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice is strongly related to reaching a full resolution. The probability of an employee reporting full resolution increases from 46% to 97% when complete corroboration is reported. The probability of a supervisor reporting full resolution increases from 29% to 98% when complete corroboration is reported. These results provide additional support for our second hypothesis.

Table 4.

Predicted Probabilities of Resolution Status by Corroboration of Interpersonal Justice Measures

	Employees		Supervisors
	No corroboration	Full corroboration	No corroboration	Full corroboration
No resolution	.54	.03	.71	.02
Full resolution	.46	.97	.29	.98

Note: The predicted probabilities in this table are based on Model 4. All other variables held constant at their means.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study uses data from the USPS REDRESS program to examine the relationships among disputants’ roles in mediation, their experiences of justice during the mediation process, and the quality of the mediated outcome in terms of settlement. Before reviewing our findings, it is useful to briefly discuss the unique nature of our study, as well as its advantages as compared with other studies that have examined organizational justice and/or alternative dispute resolution in a workplace setting. First, to our knowledge, no other studies have examined all of the factors of organizational justice in a workplace mediation setting or examined perceptions of organizational justice by disputants’ role. Second, we not only look at perceptions of justice and fairness but also use objective measures, namely, corroborated reports of behaviors from the parties in the mediation process. Third, no other studies have attempted to measure the degree to which parties corroborate the experiences of interpersonal justice and apology (i.e., how those perceptions are the same or differ), and how those corroborated experiences influence settlement. Finally, our study uses field data from one of the largest, if not the largest, employment mediation programs in the world, as opposed to data collected from experimental settings using students in a role-play exercise.

The analyses presented in this study make several new contributions to our understanding of organizational justice dynamics in workplace mediation. First, Models 1, 2, and 4 for both employees and supervisors show that the experience of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice contributes to achieving a full mediated resolution. These results support our hypothesis that overall positive perceptions of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice are significantly related to resolution. Prior to the implementation of the REDRESS program, 90% to 95% of EEO cases were disposed of in favor of the supervisors (Bingham & Novac, 2001), most probably because many of these cases dealt with miscommunication and interpersonal friction rather than with legally cognizable employment discrimination. This might be one of the reasons for perceiving that the other person listened to and acknowledged the other’s point of view in mediation is associated with settlement. In the traditional discrimination complaint process, an employee who felt mistreated would file a complaint and the supervisor might not learn about the basis for that complaint until a formal investigation or hearing. There was little or no opportunity for direct communication. Employment mediation provided that opportunity.

Second, Models 3 and 4 show how the individual indicators of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice play a role in achieving a mediated resolution. Specifically, these models show that both employees and supervisors were more likely to report a full resolution when both parties reported that the other person listened and that the supervisor acknowledged the employee’s views. Model 4 also shows that the report of a full resolution was more likely when both parties agreed that the employee acknowledged the supervisor’s views. These results indicate that that corroboration on the disputant–disputant interpersonal justice indicators, and particularly on the listening and acknowledgement variables, increases the likelihood of achieving a full resolution in mediation. This provides some support for our second hypothesis—mediations with high levels of corroboration between the disputants on the disputant–disputant interpersonal justice indicators are more likely to result in settlement. In short, these results show that not only are disputants’ perceptions of justice important to reaching a full resolution, so too is the extent to which disputants’ perceptions match with actual behavior. This suggests that one of the major roles a mediator can play is to facilitate two-way communication between the parties to generate more cooperation in the mediation setting and higher quality outcomes (Poitras, 2007).

Third, in these paired mediations, the corroboration of reported apologies was less frequent than corroboration of listening, learning, and acknowledging, and there was more corroboration of supervisor apologies than employee apologies. One reason for the infrequent apology corroboration may be that people overreport their own good or desirable behaviors, thus creating a social desirability bias (DeMaio, 1984). Social desirability bias may be more likely for employees than for supervisors, because for supervisors, an apology is often perceived as an admission against interests. Nevertheless, the results suggest that for employees, receiving (and hearing) an apology from the supervisor is important to reporting a full resolution of the dispute. That is, the corroborated report of an apology from the supervisor is strongly related to settlement. This supports previous research findings that apologies are valuable in dispute resolution (Baron, 1990; Ohbuchi et al., 1989; Tedeschi & Norman, 1985).

In sum, our results underscore the importance of disputant–disputant interpersonal justice in workplace mediation. These results are made abundantly clear in Table 4, which shows that complete corroboration on the disputant–disputant interpersonal justice indicators increases the probability of an employee reporting full resolution from 46% to 97% and of a supervisor reporting full resolution from 29% to 98%. Managers must be concerned with fostering and managing impressions of justice in the mediation of workplace disputes, especially given the many negative and contagious effects of conflict in organizations (Greenberg, 1990a; Greenberg & Scott, 1996; Sheppard et al., 1992; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Dispute resolution methods that focus on reconciling both parties’ interests, such as mediation, often have positive effects on organizational climate and performance (Poitras & Le Tareau, 2008). For these reasons, our findings have important organizational and managerial implications.

First, organizations in both the public and private sectors are increasingly addressing workplace conflict by implementing various ADR processes and programs. In the federal sector, the EEOC mandated that agencies offer ADR to address EEO disputes. Therefore, it is important that future research assess the role of justice, and especially disputant–disputant interpersonal justice, in various settings and different dispute system designs. Understanding the impact of perceptions of fairness on the outcomes of various formal dispute resolution procedures might aid in designing more effective dispute resolution systems and creating long-term positive solutions to workplace conflicts.

Second, just as it is likely that different ADR programs and processes will result in different perceptions of justice, it is also likely that they will have different impacts on case resolution, employee relationships, and the organization as a whole. Although our study examined only one ADR process (transformative mediation) in one organization (the USPS), the results have broader implications for dispute system design. One of the theoretical benefits of transformative mediation is that it may improve workplace environments by fostering good communication skills between employees and supervisors (Bush & Folger, 2004). Indeed, the USPS selected the transformative model of mediation not only because it promotes more stable settlements and outcomes, but also because of its potential to transform the workplace culture and environment (Hallberlin, 2001). Additional research on the REDRESS program suggest it had numerous positive organizational effects (see generally, Bingham, 2003; Bingham, Hallberlin, Walker, & Chung, 2009). The efficacy of the transformative model may be explained by the fact that it affords disputants maximum self-determination with regard to process, decisions, and outcomes (Bingham, 2002, 2004). Other research suggests that procedures that give disputants decision and process control and seek compromise decisions are more conducive to postconflict relationships than procedures without these elements (Lind & Tyler, 1988). While this in no way means that every organization should use transformative mediation, the findings do indicate that disputant–disputant interpersonal justice is important in explaining settlement in mediation, and that shifts toward empowerment and recognition are conducive to positive postconflict relationships. These findings should be considered in organizational dispute system design efforts.

Finally, greater use of ADR in organizations will require managers to become more adept at and skilled in conflict management. Managers could benefit from understanding interpersonal justice. Listening to an employee’s expression of voice, showing concern and empathy, and providing causal accounts and apologies can increase the employee’s experience of interpersonal justice, which can help resolve workplace disputes.

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge support for the Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute, Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Bloomington, Indiana and this research in part by a grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and in part by a contract with the United States Postal Service. They also wish to thank Cynthia J. Hallberlin, Professor Jeanne Brett, and a number of anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments on the many earlier versions of this study. An early version of this study was presented at the International Association for Conflict Management in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania where it received Best Empirical Paper Award (2004) under the working title “Disputants’ Perceptions of Interactional Justice: Mediation at the USPS.”

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded in part by a grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and a contract with the United States Postal Service.

Notes

Bios

Rebecca Nesbit is an Assistant Professor of Nonprofit Management at UNC Charlotte. Her research interests include volunteering, volunteer management, nonprofit organizations, and public management.

Tina Nabatchi is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration and International Affairs at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. Her research interests include collaborative governance, citizen participation, and dispute resolution.

Lisa Blomgren Bingham is a Professor and Keller-Runden Chair in Public Service at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. Her professional interests include collaborative governance, dispute resolution, and administrative law.

References

Adams

J. S.

(1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-426.

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.

Anderson

J. F.

Bingham

(1997). Upstream effects from mediation of workplace disputes: Some preliminary evidence from the USPS. Labor Law Journal, 48, 601-615.

Austin

W. G.

Tobiasen

J. M.

(1984). Legal justice and the psychology of conflict resolution. In Folger

(Ed.), The sense of injustice: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 227-274). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Baron

R. A.

(1990). Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The relative efficacy of four interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 235-245.

Baxter

V. K.

(1994). Labor and politics in the U.S. Postal Service. New York, NY: Plenum.

Bennett

R. J.

(1998). Taking the sting out of the whip: Reactions to consistent punishment for unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 248-262.

Bies

R. J.

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

L. L.

Staw

B. M.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 289-319). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Bies

R. J.

Moag

J. S.

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

R. J.

Sheppard

B. H.

Bazerman

M. H.

(Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

10.

Bies

R. J.

Shapiro

D. L.

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

11.

Bies

R. J.

Shapiro

D. L.

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

12.

Bingham

L. B.

(1997). Mediating employment disputes: Perceptions of REDRESS at the United States Postal Service. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17, 20-30.

13.

Bingham

L. B.

(2002). Why suppose? Let’s find out: A public policy research perspective on dispute resolution. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2002(1), 101-126.

14.

Bingham

L. B.

(2003). Mediation at work: Transforming workplace conflict at the United States Postal Service. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.

15.

Bingham

L. B.

(2004). Employment dispute resolution: The case for mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22, 145-174.

16.

Bingham

L. B.

Chesmore

Moon

Napoli

L. M.

(2000). Mediating employment disputes at the United States Postal Service: A comparison of in-house and outside neutral mediators. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20, 5-19.

17.

Bingham

L. B.

Hallberlin

C. J.

Walker

D. A.

Chung

W. T.

(2009). Dispute system design and justice in employment dispute resolution: Mediation at the workplace. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 14, 1-50.

18.

Bingham

L. B.

Nabatchi

Senger

Jackman

M. S.

(2009). Dispute resolution and the vanishing trial: Comparing federal government litigation and ADR outcomes. Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, 24, 225-262.

19.

Bingham

L. B.

Napoli

L. M.

(1999). Employment dispute resolution and workplace culture: The REDRESS program at the United States Postal Service. In Breger

Schatz

(Eds.), The federal administrative dispute resolution deskbook (pp. 507-526). Washington, DC: The American Bar Association.

20.

Bingham

L. B.

Novac

M. C.

(2001). Mediation’s impact on formal discrimination complaint filing: Before and after the REDRESS™ program at the USPS. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 21, 308-331.

21.

Bingham

L. B.

Wise

C. R.

(1996). The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990: How do we evaluate its success? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6, 383-414.

22.

Blancero

D. M.

DelCampo

R. G.

Marron

G. F.

(2010). Just tell me! Making alternative dispute resolution systems fair. Industrial Relations, 49, 524-543.

23.

Bobocel

D. R.

Farrell

A. C.

(1996). Sex-based promotion decisions and interactional fairness: Investigating the influence of managerial accounts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 22-35.

24.

Brett

J. M.

Shapiro

D. L.

Lytle

A. L.

(1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 410-424.

25.

Brockner

Greenberg

(1990). The impact of layoffs on survivors: An organizational justice perspective. In Carroll

J. S.

(Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 45-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

26.

Bush

R. A. B.

(2004). One size does not fit all: A pluralistic approach to mediator performance testing and quality assurance. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 19, 965-1004.

27.

Bush

R. A. B.

Folger

J. P.

(1994). The promise of mediation: Responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

28.

Bush

R. A. B.

Folger

J. P.

(1996). Transformative mediation and third-party intervention: Ten hallmarks of a transformative approach to practice. Mediation Quarterly, 13, 263-278.

29.

Bush

R. A. B.

Folger

J. P.

(2004). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

30.

Bush

R. A. B.

Pope

S. G.

(2002). Changing the quality of conflict interaction: The principles and practice of transformative mediation. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 67(3), 67-96.

31.

Cohen-Charash

Spector

P. E.

(2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Orgnizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-324.

32.

Colquitt

J. A.

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

33.

Colquitt

J. A.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

Porter

K. Y.

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

34.

Cropanzano

Greenberg

(1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In Cooper

C. L.

Robertson

I. T.

(Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 317-372). New York, NY: Wiley.

35.

Cropanzano

R. S.

Rupp

D. E.

Mohler

C. J.

Schminke

(2001). Three roads to organizational justice. In Ferris

(Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 20, pp. 1-113). Kidlington, UK: Oxford.

36.

DeMaio

T. J.

(1984). Social desirability and survey measurement: A review. In Turner

C. F.

Martin

(Eds.), Surveying subjective phenomena (Vol. 2, pp. 257-282). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

37.

Deutsch

(1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-150.

38.

Deutsch

(1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological approach. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

39.

Folger

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

J. C.

Smith

E. P.

(Eds.), Social comparison, justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp. 183-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

40.

Folger

(1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In Murnighan

J. K.

(Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 161-183). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

41.

Folger

Cropanzano

(1998). Process and procedural and interactional justice. In Folger

Cropanzano

(Eds.), Organizational justice and human resource management (pp. 25-49). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

42.

Folger

Konovsky

M. A.

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

43.

Greenberg

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

44.

Greenberg

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

45.

Greenberg

(1990b). Managing impressions of organizational justice. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research on organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 111-157). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

46.

Greenberg

(1991). Using explanations to manage impressions of performance appraisal fairness. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 51-60.

47.

Greenberg

(1993a). The intellectual adolescences of organizational justice: You’ve come a long way, maybe. Social Justice Research, 6, 135-148.

48.

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 (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

49.

Greenberg

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

50.

Greenberg

Scott

K. S.

(1996). Why do workers bite the hand that feeds them? Employee theft as a social exchange process. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research on organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 111-156). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

51.

Greenberg

Barling

(1996). Employee theft. In Cooper

C.L.

Rousseau

D.M.

(Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 49-64). New York, NY: Wiley.

52.

Hallberlin

C. J.

(2001). Transforming workplace culture through mediation: Lessons learned from swimming upstream. Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal, 18, 375-383.

53.

Jawahar

I. M.

(2002). A model of organizational justice and workplace aggression. Journal of Management, 28, 811-857.

54.

Jones

F. F.

Scarpello

Bergmann

(1999). Pay procedures: What makes them fair? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 129-145.

55.

Kakalik

J. S.

Dunworth

Hill

L. A.

McCaffrey

Oshiro

Pace

N. M.

Vaiana

M. E.

(1996). An evaluation of mediation and early neutral evaluation under the Civil Justice Reform Act. Washington, DC: RAND.

56.

Kim

S. E.

Rubianty

(2011). Perceived fairness of performance appraisals in the federal Government: Does it matter? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 1-20. doi:10.1177/0734371X1142890310.1177/0734371X11428903

57.

Konovsky

M. A.

(2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 489-511.

58.

Korsgaard

M. A.

Roberson

(1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21, 657-669.

59.

Kressel

Pruitt

D. G.

(1989). Conclusion: A research perspective on the mediation of social conflict. In Kressel

Pruitt

D. G.

(Eds.), Mediation Research: The process and effectiveness of third party intervention (pp. 394-435). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

60.

Leventhal

G. S.

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

Walster

(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91-131). New York, NY: Academic Press.

61.

Lind

E. A.

Kanfer

Earley

P.C.

(1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.

62.

Lind

E. A.

Tyler

T. R.

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

63.

Long

J. S.

Freese

(2003). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

64.

Marcus

Senger

J. M.

(2001). ADR and the federal government: Not such strange bedfellows after all. Missouri Law Review, 66, 709-723.

65.

Moorman

R. H.

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

66.

Nabatchi

(2007). The institutionalization of alternative dispute resolution in the federal government. Public Administration Review, 67, 646-661.

67.

Nabatchi

Bingham

L. B.

(2010). From postal to peaceful: Dispute systems design in the USPS REDRESS^® program. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30, 211-234.

68.

Nabatchi

Bingham

L. B.

Good

(2007). Organizational justice and dispute resolution: A six-factor model for workplace mediation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18, 148-176.

69.

Nabatchi

Bingham

L. B.

Moon

(2010). Evaluating transformative practice in the U.S. Postal Service REDRESS program. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 27, 257-289.

70.

Napoli

L. M.

(2004). USPS supervisors and conflict management techniques: Evaluating training and mediation interventions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

71.

Ohbuchi

Kameda

Agarie

(1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 219-227.

72.

Perry

J. L.

(2010). A strategic agenda for public human resource management research. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30(1), 20-43.

73.

Poitras

(2007). The paradox of accepting one’s share of responsibility in mediation. Negotiation Journal, 23, 267-282.

74.

Poitras

Le Tareau

(2008). Dispute resolution patterns and organizational dispute states. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19, 72-87.

75.

Pruitt

D. G.

Carnevale

P. J.

(1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

76.

Rubin

E. V.

(2011). Exploring the link between procedural fairness and union membership in the federal government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31(2), 128-142.

77.

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, 925-946.

78.

Senger

J. M.

(2000). Turning the ship of state. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2000(1), 79-95.

79.

Senger

J. M.

(2004). Federal dispute resolution: Using ADR with the United States government. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

80.

Shapiro

D. L.

(1993). Reconciling theoretical differences among procedural justice researchers by re-evaluating what it means to have one’s views “considered”: Implications for third-party managers. In Cropanzano

(Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 51-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

81.

Shapiro

D. L.

Brett

J. M.

(1993). Comparing three processes underlying judgments of procedural justice: A field study of mediation and arbitration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1167-1177.

82.

Sheppard

B. H.

Lewicki

R. J.

Minton

J. W.

(1992). Organizational justice: The search for fairness in the workplace. New York, NY: Lexington Books.

83.

Skarlicki

D. P.

Folger

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

84.

Skitka

L. J.

Winquist

Hutchinson

(2003). Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychology constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research, 16, 309-341.

85.

Tedeschi

J. T.

Norman

(1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In Schlenker

B. R.

(Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 293-322). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

86.

Thibaut

J. W.

Walker

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

87.

Tjosvold

Johnson

D. W.

(1978). Controversy within a cooperative of competitive context and cognitive perspective taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3, 376-386.

88.

Tjosvold

Morishima

Belsheim

J. A.

(1999). Complaint handling on the shop floor: Cooperative relationships and open-minded strategies. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10, 45-68.

89.

Tyler

T. R.

(1990). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

90.

Tyler

T. R.

Bies

R. J.

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

(Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 77-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

91.

Tyler

T. R.

Degoey

Smith

H. J.

(1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matter: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913-930.

92.

U.S. GAO. (1997). U.S. Postal Service: Little progress made in addressing persistent labor-management problems. Washington, DC: Author.