Getting to “Fair”

Abstract

The vast majority of justice studies reflect the “event paradigm,” focusing on how subordinates form fairness perceptions in discrete situations and how managers can alter perceptions of isolated events. However, subordinates also form global appraisals of their managers across specific events and situations. To augment the event paradigm, research falling within the “social entity paradigm” focuses on these general justice appraisals. To date, very little theory has been developed on managerial fairness from a social entity perspective. Little is known regarding how entity perceptions are formed (i.e., how managers come to be seen as “fair managers”). To address this issue, we integrate insights from research on identity negotiation into the organizational justice literature and propose that entity perceptions evolve over time across three types of events. This justice negotiation perspective is unique in that we emphasize the role of both managers and subordinates as actors in the process, rather than employees as passive observers of managers’ actions. We also move beyond subordinate perceptions to consider the role of manager self-perceptions of fairness.

Keywords

fairness justice identity negotiation dyad interpersonal relationships entity event

The “event paradigm” of justice (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001) concerns actions and perceptions associated with a specific event, defined as a segment of time at a given location known by an observer to have a beginning and an end (Zacks & Tversky, 2001). The types of events studied by justice scholars include wage cuts (Greenberg, 1990), performance appraisals (Bartol, Durham, & Poon, 2001), layoffs (Brockner, Wiesenfeld, & Martin, 1995), and the implementation of corporate policies (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). This research generally finds that (1) fairness issues are very salient to employees and link to a variety of cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes (see Conlon, Meyer, & Nowakowski, 2005, for a review) and (2) managers are similarly attuned to fairness concerns and try to be fair (Meindl, 1989) or at least appear fair (Greenberg, 1988). One question that cannot be answered by studies within the event paradigm is how managers come to be seen as “fair managers” by subordinates. Research on justice events is not designed to answer entity questions, since it is typically cross-sectional (e.g., Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991) or conducted in a laboratory (e.g., Jones & Skarlicki, 2005) focusing on reactions to a particular occurrence rather than an overall judgment. In ongoing manager–subordinate relationships, however, these more general perceptions of fairness surely influence relations beyond discrete events.

A general perception of managerial fairness involves a dispositional judgment of a social entity (i.e., a supervisor), which is affected by discrete events but transcends them (Cropanzano et al., 2001). Research on entity perceptions of manager fairness, termed overall supervisor justice by some scholars (Holtz & Harold, 2009), has been burgeoning (Choi, 2008; Holtz & Harold, 2009; Hollensbe, Khazanchi, & Masterson, 2008). Notably, Choi (2008) integrated event and social entity paradigms in a single empirical study and found employee outcomes, such as trust in management and organizational citizenship behaviors, were more strongly related to social entity justice perceptions (i.e., general judgments of managerial fairness) than event justice perceptions. Hollensbe et al. (2008) collected qualitative data at two points in time to identify the content of entity perceptions (i.e., the decision rules underlying general judgments of fairness). They found that, when forming entity perceptions, subordinates collected information reflecting the four traditional justice dimensions (i.e., distributive, procedural, informational, interpersonal; Colquitt, 2001). Subordinates also looked beyond these dimensions to information related to supervisor attributes and social information. Holtz and Harold (2009) similarly studied the content of entity perceptions, but made a notable contribution by looking at the stability of these entity perceptions over time.

We will build on this research by applying insights from identity negotiation to the justice literature (e.g., Swann, 1987; Swann & Ely, 1984). Similar to Hollensbe et al. (2008) and Holtz and Harold (2009), we address the formation of entity judgments. However, we delineate a model that considers both manager and subordinates as mutually influential on judgments of a manager’s fairness, rather than focusing solely on the subordinate’s perspective. We integrate event and social entity paradigms, as Choi (2008) did, to articulate a process through which entity perceptions are formed over time. The role of time is fundamental to advancing knowledge on entity perceptions since Holtz and Harold (2009) found that entity judgments are not as stable as assumed. In this study, data collected over three time periods indicated significant within-person change in entity justice perceptions. Justice scholars need to understand what might be happening “behind the scenes” to cause fluctuations over time. We, thus, offer a dynamic theoretical explanation, highlighting what might drive these changes at different points in time. To clarify, the term justice negotiation is inspired by the model’s roots in identity negotiation theory and reflects a departure from prior justice research that has focused more explicitly on one way communication (e.g., Greenberg, 1990) rather than two way interactions.

Integrating the identity negotiation paradigm with research on organizational justice furthers the conceptual development of the latter in several ways. First, we describe the process through which a manager comes to be considered fair (or not) by a particular subordinate over time. Second, we acknowledge the role of both parties as actors in the process. This approach is consistent with prior research in that it maintains focus on the “fairness” of only one party in the relationship, the manager. The justice negotiation perspective differs, however, from the more traditional perspective (i.e., of employees as perceivers of managers’ actions) by conceptualizing the formation of fairness perceptions as occurring through dyadic-level interactions. Third, expanding on Bies (2001, 2005) that justice interactions occur during routine as well as exchange contexts (Greenberg, 1993), we acknowledge a third distinct type of event, a justice negotiation event. Identity negotiation theory clarifies how information conveyed through these three types of events informs a general perception of fairness. Finally, we highlight the utility of moving beyond a focus on subordinate perceptions to also consider manager self-perceptions of fairness.

The identity negotiation framework offers new, valuable ways to conceptualize justice in ongoing relationships. We demonstrate this, first, by describing the process of identity negotiation and explicitly discussing how this perspective differs from and adds value to event-based justice research. Next, we outline the assumptions on which the justice negotiation framework is based and, then describe the iterative process through which justice-related perceptions of managers and subordinates are created and maintained. We conclude by discussing the implications of this model for future research and practice.

Identity Negotiation in Ongoing Relationships

Both research on event-based justice and identity negotiation focus on dynamics which affect relationship quality. Whereas event-based research focuses on how a subordinate perceives a manager in a specific situation or how a manager defends an identity in a specific situation, identity negotiation research explains how two people negotiate this identity over time. Specifically, identity negotiation provides a theoretical framework for understanding the interplay between self- and other-perceptions within a dyad (Swann, 1987). This paradigm is particularly appropriate for informing justice research on the issue of entity justice perceptions of managers.

Social psychologists have been conducting research on identity negotiation for more than 20 years, finding support for the basic tenets of the theory (Swann, 1987; Swann & Ely, 1984). Specifically, when two individuals enter into a relationship, they each possess a self-concept (i.e., an idea of who they are), and they each have an appraisal of the other (i.e., expectancies of the other person). As the relationship matures, each party attempts to influence the other into perceiving them in a manner congruent with their self-concept. Concurrently, each party also communicates to the other how they perceive them (i.e., their appraisal of the other party). These negotiating efforts continue until the self-concept and appraisal agree.¹

Influence processes within dyads flow in two opposing directions. Accordingly, either party could be the “perceiver” or the “target” at any given time (McNulty & Swann, 1994). For the purposes of this discussion, the focus is on the self-concept of the manager as the “target,” since it is the manager’s self-concept (i.e., as being fair or not) and the subordinate’s appraisal of the manager (e.g., “I think my manager is a fair person”) which is of interest. The subordinate is, thus, the “perceiver.” In relation to one party’s identity, the identity negotiation literature refers to the target’s negotiating efforts as self-verification.

People self-verify to increase their perception of predictability and control over their environment. Individuals desire to be seen “accurately” by others (i.e., they want others to see them as they see themselves) due to epistemic and pragmatic concerns (Swann, Polzer, Seyle, & Ko, 2004; Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler, 1992). Epistemic concerns reflect the need for people to be reassured of their self-conception: When they interact with others who agree with their self-view, it is confirming. People also generally desire to have smooth, harmonious interactions with others (a pragmatic concern) and believe this is more likely if the other party understands who they really are. Vignoles, Golledge, Regalia, Manzi, and Scabini (2006) describe these concerns as creating a motive for self-verification which they call the continuity motive: People have a desire to maintain a sense of identity which is consistent across time and situations. To clarify how this process might operate for the fairness identity, we next interpret the justice literature vis-à-vis identity negotiation theory and elucidate the assumptions of our justice negotiation perspective.

Identity Negotiation and Justice Perceptions

Identity negotiation research has found that individuals are motivated to maintain identities with various constituents (e.g., MBA study group members, fraternity brothers, romantic partners) involving a wide variety of characteristics such as likeability, interaction style (i.e., level of assertiveness and emotionality), and academic and athletic ability (Gill & Swann, 2004; Swann, Bosson, & Pelham, 2002; Swann, Milton, & Polzer, 2000). None of this research has specifically studied managers and subordinates. Negotiation processes should occur here as well, since managers are able to influence subordinates’ perceptions and subordinates are able to influence managers’ perceptions (Madon et al., 2001; Scandura & Graen, 1984). Moreover, although identity negotiation research has not previously studied the maintenance of “fair” identities, we expect that individuals, particularly those within manager–subordinate dyads, will be motivated to negotiate this identity and will have opportunity to do so. In sum, the justice negotiation framework we are proposing relies on four assumptions derived from integrating the justice and identity negotiation literatures. We discuss each of these, in turn, before outlining the justice negotiation process.

Variability in Managers’ Fair Identities

People desire to be perceived by others as they see themselves (Giesler, Josephs, & Swann, 1996; Swann, Pelham, & Krull, 1989). If managers view themselves as fair, they will negotiate with subordinates to verify this identity of fairness. In reality, however, self-perceptions of fairness may vary. Obviously, this argument presupposes that there are managers who, in fact, view themselves as less than completely fair (i.e., falling somewhere on the continuum other than the “fair” endpoint). Research in the area of identity negotiation lends tangential support to this premise. It confirms that individuals may maintain negative evaluations of themselves on a variety of different dimensions (De La Ronde & Swann, 1998; Giesler et al., 1996; McNulty & Swann, 1994; Swann et al., 2000; Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & McNulty, 1992). None of this research, however, has studied fair identities. The justice literature has also paid little attention to whether people’s fairness evaluations of themselves differ, instead focusing on why it is important for managers to act fairly or be perceived by others as fair. One exception is Zapata, Olsen, and Martins (2013) who collected manager self-reports of justice rule adherence in terms of interpersonal and informational justice. Though the means were somewhat high (4.62 and 4.14, on a 5-point scale, for interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence, respectively), the standard deviations (0.49 and 0.44, respectively) indicate that many of these managers did not consider themselves as acting in a perfectly fair manner.

The plausibility of the assumption that some managers may view themselves as less than completely fair is further enhanced by considering that it must only hold within the domain of a specific relationship. Research on identity negotiation acknowledges that identity construction in organizations is complex: Individuals in the workplace possess identities on multiple dimensions (e.g., fair, competent, assertive) and negotiate these identities with multiple parties (e.g., members of a work team or all direct reports). In other words, at a general level, a manager will have a self-view relevant to the managerial role (e.g., I am a fair manager to my employees). This manager may also develop a situated identity when enacting this role with each subordinate (e.g., I am a fair manager to Sarah). When developing these situated identities, managers may realize they treat some subordinates better than others and, to the extent they do, may acknowledge they are fairer within certain relationships compared with others. In sum, the situated identity developed within each dyad is the focus of the current framework and managers’ situated self-views may vary in terms of their level of fairness.

Research on identity negotiation also finds that the degree to which an individual (in this case a manager) finds a certain identity facet important may vary (Swann & Pelham, 2002). An individual should consider a particular self-view more important if it regards a quality which is instrumental to accomplishing “their personal goals and ambitions” (Pelham, 1991, p. 520). For managers, there can be various contextual influences which affect the importance of a fairness-related identity. Often managers are evaluated according to how well they maintain the performance of their employees. In this case, fairness may be very salient. Yet recent theoretical work describes how managers might adhere to or violate justice rules to create a desired social identity and this desired identity may relegate any concerns regarding fairness (Scott, Colquitt, & Paddock, 2009). For example, managers may “violate justice rules to promote an image or toughness or avoid appearing soft” (Scott et al., 2009, p. 759). Alternatively, managers may be given priorities by their managers who are less consistent with maintaining a “fair” identity, such as cutting costs, increasing efficiency, or implementing change. If so, managers may be more concerned with verifying their identity as an astute accountant, an insightful operations consultant, or an action-oriented leader to their boss. Given alternate priorities, even if managers consider themselves to be “fair,” this identity may be confounded. The preceding discussion implies the following two assumptions:

Assumption 1: Managers possess an overall fairness-related identity and the degree to which they see themselves as fair vis-à-vis a particular subordinate can vary.

Assumption 2: The amount of importance that managers place on their fairness-related identity in relation to a particular subordinate varies from important to unimportant.

Managers and Subordinates as Negotiators of Fairness

Now that we have described the nature of managers’ fairness-related identities, we next address whether managers and subordinates negotiate this particular aspect of identity. Swann (1984) reasons that, when two people enter into a relationship, the characteristics they choose to negotiate will be determined by the interaction goals for that relationship. Different qualities are relevant for different types of relationships (Bugental, 2000):

For example, the trait of being an effective public speaker might be highly relevant in one’s lawyer but not in one’s lover. Conversely, the trait of being emotionally supportive might by highly relevant in one’s lover but not in one’s lawyer. (Gill & Swann, 2004, p. 411)

In the domain of manager–subordinate relationships, there are many qualities which are not likely related to the interaction goals of the parties (e.g., whether a manager is musical, artistic, or athletic). Fairness, however, is very relevant to the interaction goals within a manager–subordinate domain, since this type of relationship is based on ongoing exchanges.

Additionally, managers and subordinates have many opportunities to negotiate the manager’s fairness. Managers are required to fulfill responsibilities, such as evaluating employee performance, interacting with employees in an appropriate manner, and distributing limited resources. These activities provide subordinates a wealth of diagnostic information. Subordinates often have latitude to offer feedback to managers who can then offer corrective feedback. In other words, managers and subordinates will not only be motivated to form perceptions of a manager’s fairness-related identity, but will also have opportunity to negotiate this identity throughout the course of their relationship. As described by Swann, Johnson, and Bosson (2009): “Identity negotiation is a fundamentally iterative process that involves a series of transactions between targets and their interaction partners” (p. 85). The “transactions” in this case are interactions in which fairness-relevant information is communicated by the manager, often even implicitly. Once the manager and subordinate reach agreement as to the manager’s fairness, this identity can still shift or be questioned based on the manager exhibiting behaviors at a later point that are inconsistent with the identity. When this occurs, perceptions may be revised and active negotiation efforts are ignited again. In sum, identities are negotiated throughout the course of a relationship as parties continuously perceive and collect information about each other.

Assumption 3: In a manager–subordinate dyad, both parties may revise their perceptions of the manager’s fairness-related identity as they continuously collect information regarding this identity from one another.

The Issue of Multidimensionality

Justice is multidimensional and a manager can act fairly or unfairly in relation to any of the dimensions identified (i.e., procedural, interactional, or distributive justice; Bies & Moag, 1986). Distributive justice (or equity) involves employee perceptions of the fairness of outcomes received, such as pay, benefits, or other perks. Procedural justice, alternatively, is the application of fair rules in decisions regarding resource allocation. Interactional justice is achieved by treating employees with dignity and respect. It involves leader behaviors such as offering explanations and showing interpersonal sensitivity (Bies & Moag, 1986). Not every dimension of justice is relevant for every manager–subordinate pair. Procedural and distributive justice are bounded in resource exchange contexts which may be less frequent or may not occur at all for some dyads (e.g., those in which only a dotted-line reporting relationship exists). In contrast, interactional justice can be judged in virtually any encounter between managers and subordinates, even when resource allocation decisions are not being made.

Assumption 4: Interactional justice is relevant for almost all manager–subordinate pairs, whereas procedural and distributive justice will be more or less relevant for particular manager–subordinate pairs contingent on the exigencies the pair faces.

The Manager–Subordinate Justice Negotiation Process

Over time, the justice negotiation process ultimately results in a general justice appraisal of the manager. The value of this perspective lies in its ability to conceptualize how events can inform a more global judgment (i.e., an entity judgment). Central to this event-entity discussion is clarifying the types of “events” that managers and subordinates experience together. Thus, in this section, we outline the three types of events and how they differ, followed by discussion of how these events accumulate to inform an entity perception of fairness.

First, the traditional type of event in which justice interactions have been studied is the “exchange context” (Greenberg, 1993). Exchanges involve specific organizational decisions or resource allocations. Bies (2001, 2005) advanced the “encounter” perspective as an alternative to the “exchange context,” noting that, since research now supports the distinct effects of interactional justice, justice occurs during everyday encounters and is not bounded to exchanges (e.g., resource allocation, decision making). Thus, the justice literature already proposes two types of “events,” encounters and exchanges. Incorporating insights from identity negotiation (Swann, 1987) with this logic already present in the justice literature (Bies, 2001, 2005), identifies a third relevant type of event, a justice negotiation event.

Identity negotiation theory distinguishes between “routine” versus “crisis” identity negotiation (Swann, 1987). The former refers to the typical types of situations in which people spend most of their time, interacting with others whom they are already very familiar (i.e., those with whom they have already successfully negotiated an identity). In these familiar situations, negotiation activities are merely routine ways of communicating and maintaining the self-concept. Individuals resort to crisis self-verification efforts, however, when they are faced with an event that causes them to question who they are. These types of negotiation activities differ from routine identity negotiation in that targets (e.g., managers) “focus attention on themselves and enact specific attempts to elicit self-confirmatory reactions” (Swann, 1987, p. 1042). Crisis identity negotiation processes are most often triggered when a person receives feedback which they feel is discrepant from their true selves. Incidentally, crisis identity negotiation typically entails an explicit discussion of the identity attribute in question (e.g., fairness). Attributes of routine and crisis negotiations of fairness appear in Table 1. Although all three types of events (i.e., encounters, exchanges, and justice negotiations) play a critical role in the negotiation process, we place more emphasis on explaining the nature of justice negotiation events (crisis negotiations). Whereas encounters and exchanges have received attention in extant research, crisis events have not previously been discussed.

Table 1.

Three Types of “Event” Contexts.

	Encounters	Exchanges	Justice negotiations
Level of subordinate’s involvement	Minimally involved	Minimally to moderately involved	Highly involved
Type of verification/negotiation activity	Routine	Routine	Crisis
Consideration of fairness	Implicit	Explicit	Explicit
Relative frequency (typical)	Most frequent	Less frequent	Less frequent
Information diagnosticity	Less diagnostic	Somewhat diagnostic	Very diagnostic
Dimensions of justice informed	Interactional	Interactional as well as procedural and/or distributive	Interactional as well as procedural and/or distributive
Examples of subordinate involvement	Seeking out interactions with the manager	Asking questions to get clarification	Expressing grievances regarding unfair treatment
Examples of subordinate involvement	Asking the manager for help	Making recommendations	Asking for a (seemingly deserved) raise

Encounters and Exchanges (Routine Negotiations)

Encounters are routine day to day interactions between managers and subordinates. Alternatively, exchanges focus on aspects of outcome distributions and procedures. In new relationships, initial perceptions of managerial fairness will be largely based on encounters, since these events are most frequent. Managers and subordinates will have encounters daily or weekly, whereas exchanges may only occur a few times per year (or not at all) for some dyads. Fairness is relevant during daily encounters because managers can communicate and subordinates can judge interactional justice at any time. Interactional justice “goes beyond situations of judgment and decision-making and includes all kinds of interactions” (Mikula, Petri, & Tanzer, 1990, p. 143). The justice negotiation paradigm implies that, during encounters, managers and subordinates negotiate the manager’s fairness in a manner that is subtle and implicit (i.e., outside of awareness) and justice research corroborates this, finding that fair and unfair treatment is processed at the subconscious level (Johnson & Lord, 2010).

The manager demonstrates fairness through behaviors and subordinates perceive and judge these behaviors. The level of subordinate involvement in the creation of the manager’s identity is relatively low during encounters since the subordinate mostly acts as a passive perceiver of manager behavior. Subordinates play an active role to the extent that they can influence the amount of interaction with the manager. For example, a subordinate who seeks a manager’s help on a task is inadvertently also giving the manager an opportunity to demonstrate respect and attention. These types of encounters (and their results) will be filed away for both as information regarding managerial fairness. Managers can communicate a lack of fairness during encounters in a myriad of ways, but particularly if subordinates perceive the manager is making a derogatory judgment, deceiving them, violating their privacy, or showing general disrespect (Bies, 2001).

In addition to encounters, managers also interact with subordinates in exchange contexts in which formal procedures are applied and decisions are made, usually regarding resource allocations. Examples of exchange contexts studied in the literature include performance appraisals (Bartol et al., 2001), promotion decisions (Ambrose & Cropanzano, 2003), dispute resolution (Karambayya & Brett, 1989), compensation decisions (Greenberg, 1990), layoffs (Brockner et al., 1995), and the implementation of new corporate policies (Greenberg, 1994). In such exchanges, managers communicate their fairness to employees (although in exchanges more dimensions of fairness may be judged). In addition to interpersonal treatment, managers also communicate and subordinates perceive fairness of procedures and outcomes. In exchanges, fairness is attended to more explicitly. Subordinate involvement, however, is slightly more passive. Subordinates may be moderately involved by asking questions or offering voice during procedures (Detert & Burris, 2007). For example, a subordinate receives an allotted expense budget for the next year and inquires why the amount is lower from the previous year, then asks what criteria were used to determine budgets. Even in exchanges, the negotiation process remains routine as long as the subordinate and manager concurrently maintain a common perception of the manager’s fairness.

In contrast, a crisis negotiation arises when the manager’s fairness identity is overtly questioned or the manager receives identity discrepant feedback through other means (e.g., third party or formal appraisal systems). Next, we define the concept of justice negotiation events and describe the nature and implications of these events as part of the manager–subordinate justice negotiation process.

Justice Negotiation Events (Crisis Negotiations)

Crisis negotiation activities, as discussed by Swann (1987), may occur in exchange contexts but an exchange may not always spur a negotiation event. During an annual performance review meeting in which merit pay is communicated, a manager and subordinate find themselves in a justice negotiation event if the subordinate expresses fairness concerns. Meetings of this type may occur, however, with no such concerns arising. Alternatively, a subordinate may confront a manager at other times, an occurrence described in the justice literature as a “predicament of injustice” (Bies, 1987). During a predicament of injustice “after a subordinate confronts a manager with an accusation of injustice . . . this accusation can provoke dialogue between the two parties in which either party can influence the other” (Cooper & Scandura, 2012, p. 129).

Justice negotiations will be much less frequent than encounters, since fairness concerns are explicitly discussed and salient to both parties. Justice negotiation events likely carry more weight in the entity judgment of fairness. In other words, encounters may be more frequent, but justice negotiation events may be considered more diagnostic (Burke, 1991; Skowronski & Carlston, 1987). The next section will discuss negotiation triggers and the stages of a justice negotiation event. These stages are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Justice negotiation event.

The process model described in the next section focuses on those dyads in which the manager has an initial self-view as being “fair.” Justice negotiation events are more likely to occur when the manager currently possesses a self-view of being “fair.” Subordinates are more likely to offer triggering feedback regarding unfair (rather than fair) treatment and managers are more likely to consider a fair (rather than unfair) identity important and engage in negotiation. That said, one of the counter-intuitive implications of this framework is acknowledging the possibility that managers may negotiate an identity that falls across a range of fairness levels. We do not want to diminish this implication but also endeavor to explicate the justice negotiation process as succinctly as possible.

Step 1: Negotiation Trigger

A justice negotiation event is triggered when a manager becomes concerned that a subordinate perceives him/her as being unfair. Since this negotiation process occurs at the dyadic level, feedback from the focal subordinate should be most likely to trigger a negotiation. However, since dyads are embedded in larger groups, social information can function as a trigger as well. For example, a manager receives disconfirming feedback from one subordinate, which starts a justice negotiation with that subordinate, but the manager infers that the fairness concerns are relevant to a second subordinate as well. In this case, the manager may subsequently approach the second subordinate and ignite a justice negotiation, but in this case the trigger involves identity discrepant feedback received elsewhere. Stated differently, the manager’s higher-level identity as a “fair manager” might motivate the desire to self-verify and reaffirm the manager’s situated identities.

From the subordinates’ perspective, they are likely to offer fairness-related feedback to managers if they have motivation and opportunity to do so. Although fair treatment is generally valued by employees (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001), it is not equally important to all employees. For example, fairness matters less (or not at all) for employees with low self-esteem (Wiesenfeld, Swann, Brockner, & Bartel, 2007). This research implies that (1) employees with low self-esteem or those who might not consider fair treatment important will be less likely to offer feedback regarding unfair treatment to their manager and (2) the same employee might be less likely to offer feedback regarding certain types of unfair treatment at certain times. Even if a manager receives the subordinate’s opinion through a third party or receives “anonymous” feedback, this manager may try to address the misperception (Hilton & Darley, 1985). Certain managers may also explicitly request feedback from their employees and create group norms for upward feedback (Ashford & Tsui, 1991). Moreover, a subordinate may be prompted to offer feedback after perceiving a single instance of unfairness or feedback may occur as the result of a cumulative sense of unfairness based on multiple encounter or exchange events. Regardless of what encourages this feedback to occur, however, the result of a manager receiving feedback inconsistent with the fairness identity will be a justice negotiation event, in which the manager and subordinate engage to address the incongruity in perceptions.

Proposition 1: The amount of importance the subordinate places on fair treatment will moderate the relationship between fairness concerns and the likelihood of offering feedback. A subordinate is more likely to offer feedback to a manager to the extent that fair treatment is important to that subordinate.

Proposition 2: A manager’s motivation to verify his or her identity of being fair with a subordinate will increase if a manager receives feedback that is not consistent with the manager’s fairness identity.

Disconfirming feedback may not always trigger a negotiation event. This depends on the importance the manager places on their self-view. Identity negotiation research demonstrates that the importance a target (i.e., manager) places on a self-view determines the effort put toward verifying this self-view to others (e.g., subordinates; Pelham, 1991; Swann & Pelham, 2002). When negotiating a fairness-related identity, the importance of this identity for the manager with the subordinate in question will moderate the perceptual incongruence and justice negotiation efforts (i.e., efforts to verify the fairness identity). The importance of this fairness-related identity should be largely determined by the manager’s goals (and the role the subordinate plays in accomplishing those goals) and whether the relationship with this subordinate is expected to be long-term. These two factors are related and will be discussed.

Managers may be given goals which are at odds with maintaining an identity as a “fair” manager (i.e., downsizing, cost cutting). If a manager must make such goals a priority, the manager may dismiss rather than address feedback related to fairness. Alternatively, if the manager believes being “fair” is central to their accomplishing personal goals and ambitions, the manager is motivated to engage in dialogue with subordinates claiming unfair treatment (Pelham, 1991; Scott et al., 2009). Moreover, the more weight managers place on fairness, the better able they are to generate convincing arguments regarding the fairness of their actions, facilitating self-verification efforts (Eisenstadt & Leippe, 1994). Another relevant factor which affects the importance of a manager’s fairness-related identity with a subordinate is how long the manager expects to continue working with this subordinate. Managers may allow subordinates to maintain an erroneous perception if their relationship with these subordinates is of very little consequence. The epistemic (“I need to understand who I am”) and pragmatic (“If others understand me, I can interact with them more easily”) concerns described earlier are more relevant in long-term relationships (De La Ronde & Swann, 1998; Swann, De La Ronde, & Hixon, 1994). Managers are more reliant on long-term relationships for goal attainment.

In sum, if a subordinate confronts a manager with discrepant feedback, this triggers the manager to begin negotiating justice-related perceptions in an attempt to self-verify with the subordinate. However, whether this negotiation occurs depends on the extent to which the manager considers fairness to be important with this subordinate. Rather than negotiating, the manager can choose to dismiss or ignore the feedback.

Proposition 3: Importance of the fairness self-concept moderates the relationship between incongruence in perceptions and the likelihood of self-verifying. A manager is more likely to verify his or her identity of being fair if this aspect of the self-concept is important to the manager relative to competing self-concepts.

Step 2: Manager–Subordinate Explicit Negotiation of Fairness

During justice negotiation events, the two parties may place differential emphasis on the three justice types. Triggering feedback from the subordinate can be distributive, procedural, or interactional, depending on the action which caused the subordinate to see the manager as “unfair.” Conversely, if managers believe themselves to be “fair,” the managers have two general negotiating options. They may try to convince the subordinate of their fairness by negotiating along the dimension of justice introduced by the subordinate (e.g., complaints regarding procedures might be met with a willingness to re-enact the questioned procedure).

Alternatively, the manager may use other dimensions of fairness to verify them being perceived as a “fair” manager. If a subordinate complains about a low merit increase, which the manager perceives as fairly allocated, the manager may try to appear attentive to the subordinate’s concern while concurrently clarifying the fairness of the procedure used to determine merit pay. The tendency for managers to focus negotiations along the dimension of justice introduced by the subordinate versus drawing from additional dimensions to negotiate their fairness will be largely determined by how certain the manager is that he or she acted fairly relative to the certainty of the subordinate’s belief that an injustice occurred. Certainty, defined as the amount of confidence a person has in a belief (Swann, 1987), is one of the key factors driving negotiation efforts. This is distinct from the issue of “importance” discussed earlier (Pelham, 1991). Importance determines whether or not the manager and subordinate begin explicitly negotiating justice. Once the negotiation has begun, however, the relative certainty of the parties then plays a considerable role in determining how the negotiation event is ultimately resolved.

Of the managers accused of being unfair, the ones who are more certain of their fairness will exert greater effort to convince employees otherwise (Swann & Pelham, 2002; Swann, Pelham, & Chidester, 1988). These managers likely reference dimensions of fairness other than the one in question to make their case. When a subordinate expresses a grievance regarding unfair treatment, the more certain a manager is that the situation was handled fairly, the less likely the subordinate will gain what he or she initially desired, such as a higher merit increase. Yet the subordinate may leave the negotiation with a change in the perception of the merit increase and, correspondingly, the manager.

Alternatively, the more uncertain managers are of their fairness regarding an issue, the greater the chance employees have to get those managers to adopt their perception. The employees’ feedback causes the manager to immediately question their role in the grievance. Managers concerned with being “fair” are more likely to address employees’ concerns by giving in to requests (e.g., allocating a higher merit increase) or offering concessions (Cooper & Scandura, 2012). In sum, different factors influence the certainty of manager and subordinate perceptions regarding the manager’s fairness. Managers often have access to information which subordinates do not have. Subordinates may have access to objective (e.g., salary figures) or social information influencing the certainty of their perceptions (e.g., discussion with coworkers; Jones & Skarlicki, 2005; Sias & Jablin, 1995). Regardless of the source of either party’s certainty, the outcome is that it increases the likelihood of that party influencing the other.

Proposition 4: During the negotiation event, the certainty of each party’s perception regarding the manager’s fairness will be directly related to the effort put forth by each party to influence the other’s perception.

Step 3: Resolution of the Negotiation Event

Eventually, the manager and subordinate conclude their negotiation. If the manager and subordinate only negotiated along one dimension of justice, the manager’s and subordinate’s assessment of the fairness of the event is based only on this dimension. However, justice events in which procedural or distributive issues are also discussed will also involve interactional justice since the latter type will be judged during the discussion. The evaluation of the fairness of the negotiation outcome will be based on a combined judgment of relevant justice types. The justice literature has explored the combined effects of justice dimensions on employee judgments of fairness. In a field study across three manufacturing plants, Greenberg (1990) found that distributive and interactional justice interacted to predict employee theft and turnover. He found that manufacturing workers reacted less negatively to pay cuts when they were given more information about the reason for the cuts and treated with dignity and respect. Research has also considered the simultaneous effects of distributive and procedural justice and found that procedural justice matters less to employees when outcomes received are high, but when outcomes are low, having fair procedures can mitigate negative reactions (Brockner, 2002).

Some support exists for the notion that the three types can have interactive effects. Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found that distributive, interactional, and procedural justice interacted to determine whether employees would retaliate against their employers. In particular, procedural and interactional justice functioned as substitutes: The interaction between distributive and procedural justice was only evident at low levels of interactional justice. In sum, research suggests collective effects of the justice dimensions play a role in the judgment managers and subordinates form of justice negotiation events.

Proposition 5: If a manager and subordinate negotiate along more than one justice dimension, the relevant dimensions will be combined to influence each party’s appraisal of the manager’s fairness during that negotiation.

The nature of this event’s resolution determines the next steps the parties take as their relationship progresses. If manager and subordinate perceptions are congruent, then the dyad will shift back to “routine” maintenance of the manager’s identity. If perceptions are not congruent, then dynamics may change in future iterations of negotiation. Either the manager or the subordinate could decide to broach the issue again and negotiate their position more fervently in the future, exhibiting stronger attempts to convince the other party. Alternatively, either party could resolve the issue by deciding to accept the other’s perspective. Research indicates that self-verification effects (i.e., the subordinate accepts the manager’s self-view) are more common than appraisal effects (i.e., the manager accepts the subordinate’s appraisal; Swann et al., 2000). Thus, managers may be more likely to “win” the negotiation if verification effects are more common. Alternatively, subordinate appraisals may have more influence than expected, particularly by astute managers who realize subordinate perceptions of fairness matter. Finally, either party may choose to ignore incongruence temporarily, limiting interaction in the near-term, and revisiting the discrepancy at a later point. In the next section, we further elaborate the dynamics and consequences of this iterative negotiation over time.

The Formation of an Entity Judgment Across Events

Managers and subordinates continuously negotiate the fairness identity of the manager over time through encounters, exchanges, and justice negotiations. Managers who see themselves as “fair” enact their identity with subordinates regularly so subordinates adopt the same view. These managers also give careful consideration to resource allocations and other exchanges to convey fair intent. Managers implicitly chronicle these interactions and update and revise the perceptions of themselves as a “fair” manager to each subordinate. Over time, managers may become increasingly certain of their fairness with particular subordinates to the extent that greater effort or resources have been expended on those subordinates. Alternatively, over time, managers may realize lapses in fairness with subordinates. Whichever the case, managers use this information to form an overall perception of their fairness in relation to each subordinate.

When working for a manager, subordinates similarly judge and chronicle experiences with their managers over time and use this information to form an overall perception of managerial fairness. A subordinate may initially expect a manager to be “fair,” but ultimately concludes over time that the manager is “unfair.” Alternatively, a subordinate may be forewarned about a new manager, but eventually comes to see this manager as “fair.” The subordinate forms these perceptions, particularly initial perceptions, through encounters. As the relationship progresses and exchanges and justice negotiation events occur, these types of events will also inform the fairness judgment (e.g., “My manager is a really fair person”).

We cannot definitively say which type of event will be primary for the entity judgment, since the relative frequency of the three types of events (i.e., exchanges, encounters, justice negotiations) will vary considerably across dyads. Some dyads may not ever share an exchange event. Other manager–subordinate pairs, in which fairness concerns do not arise, may never have a justice negotiation, although probably rare this is a possibility. In this situation, entity perceptions of fairness would simply derive from routine negotiation activities during encounters and exchanges. We expect information from the three types of events will also be allocated different weight. However, all information, collected across encounters and exchanges (i.e., routine events) as well as justice negotiations (i.e., crisis events), is combined in a cumulative fashion by each party to form an overall perception of the manager’s fairness-identity in the context of that dyad.

Proposition 6: Managers and subordinates form a general perception of managerial fairness (i.e., an entity perception) by negotiating the manager’s fairness over three types of events, encounters, exchanges, and justice negotiations.

Agreement Regarding the Manager’s Fairness Identity

Research on identity negotiation finds that people are more attracted to and have better relationships with others who they feel perceive them “accurately.” This implies that managers should have better relationships with subordinates who perceive them “accurately.” Thus, unlike traditional justice research that focuses on either the manager or subordinate perception in isolation, the justice negotiation perspective proposed indicates how perceptions of both parties affect the relationship. Below we describe how concurrent consideration of manager and subordinate perceptions leads to more optimal outcomes and relational equilibrium over time.

Disagreement

Identity negotiation processes are generally resolved with perceivers and targets developing higher levels of congruence in their perceptions of each other, but disagreement may occur. If subordinate and manager perceptions of managerial fairness are not aligned, the manager and subordinate will continue negotiating until their perceptions agree. Congruence generally increases with the length of the relationship, or until one or both parties disengage from or terminate the relationship. Disagreement in terms of the manager’s fairness can occur in two different ways. The manager can perceive more fairness than the subordinate or the subordinate can perceive more fairness than the manager. This inconsistency may sometimes arise from managers perceiving more self-confirming information from the subordinate than actually exists. Alternatively, the manager and subordinate may subscribe to different principles of fairness with one valuing equality and the other equity (Leung, 2005), leading to misinterpretation of manager efforts to be fair. Either type of misalignment, regardless of its source, creates challenges for the relationship.

If a manager’s self-perception of fairness is higher than the subordinate’s assessment, the subordinate may be less satisfied with the working relationship than the manager realizes. This type of misalignment results in either the subordinate continuing to confront the manager by offering discrepant feedback (i.e., challenging the manager) or withdrawing (psychologically or physically) from the relationship. Withdrawal occurs if prior negotiation events have been fruitless in attaining resolution and continued negotiations are viewed as pointless or potentially risky. From the manager’s perspective, they will be forced to continue negotiating fairness in the face of this discrepant feedback. This will ultimately be rather stressful. The manager may ultimately withdraw from the relationship with the subordinate if it is too stressful.

Alternatively, if the subordinate’s assessment of the manager is higher than the manager’s, the relationship is also in disequilibrium. Although the subordinate may be satisfied with the relationship in the short-run, over time the manager will not be able to maintain an identity which is not authentic. Thus, problems will eventually occur in this dyad since the manager will not consistently be fair to this subordinate. With either type of disagreement in identity, the relationship is not stable and the manager will feel discomfort when his or her self-views are not confirmed. Overall, the manager’s natural inclination will be to gravitate toward subordinates who confirm self-views and away from those that do not (Swann et al., 2004), which may inadvertently lead to relationship differentiation within the workgroup.

Agreement

Agreement in terms of the manager’s fairness identity is the ultimate goal of the justice negotiation process. Moreover, as long as agreement exists, “the identity negotiation process will govern the relationship routinely and automatically, leaving employees’ conscious attention free to address the work at hand” (Swann et al., 2009, p. 84). Thus, performance should be higher in cases of agreement because both parties can fully focus their effort. Research has found that MBA students were more productive and committed to their work groups when their self-views were confirmed (Swann et al., 2000), implying positive performance implications for managers’ whose fairness self-views are confirmed.

Since managerial fairness is a matter of degree (Assumption 1), congruence can occur at different levels of fairness. Much research on outcomes in the justice literature (e.g., turnover) indicates a positive relationship between fairness and outcomes, implying that greater levels of fairness are preferred. Taken together, the identity negotiation and justice literatures imply that dyads function optimally when manager–subordinate perceptions of managerial fairness align and are high (i.e., the manager is considered very fair). However, agreement regarding fairness at moderate or lower levels can still create equilibrium for some dyads.

Although a preponderance of justice research implies that harmony would not exist if a manager is considered less than completely fair, Wiesenfeld et al. (2007) suggest that some employees are less sensitive to justice violations than others. Thus, certain employees would maintain the status quo even with an “unfair” manager. Moreover, this employee, who has more tolerance for inequity, might have a better relationship with this manager than others in the workgroup. Of course, on completing this negotiation, if the employee could not tolerate being with a manager who was not completely fair, then this employee might be inclined to quit. Even though a manager–subordinate dyad may maintain a relationship if the manager is unfair, the preponderance of research indicates “fair” relations are optimal. Agreement on “fairness” should result in the most desirable outcomes (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior, performance, evaluation of authority, trust).

Proposition 7: Relational and task-related outcomes will be optimized for those dyads in which manager and subordinate perceptions of the manager’s fairness-related identity are in greater agreement and fairness is at higher levels.

Maintaining the Fairness Identity Over Time

Identity negotiation theory implies that once the subordinate and manager have negotiated the manager’s fairness-related identity, they will both contribute to maintaining this identity. If a manager and subordinate negotiate that the manager is a “fair” manager and this manager does something “unfair” which calls this into question, they may have to re-negotiate the identity. However, if the subordinate already holds the belief that the manager is “fair,” this subordinate may help the manager restore his or her “fair” identity by taking action. For example, the subordinates walks into the manager’s office and discusses the incident, giving the manager greater opportunity to amend perceptions. In other words, the justice negotiation perspective “can accommodate change as well as stability of self-views” (Swann et al., 2009, p. 94), which in this case are entity perceptions of managerial fairness. Consistent with this notion, research finds that after an entity perception is formed, it affects subsequent events (Choi, 2008): The entity judgment becomes a lens informing how both parties interpret manager–subordinate interactions with relation to justice.

Proposition 8: The manager’s fairness identity, as negotiated through initial events, will inform and influence fairness negotiations in any “downstream” events by affecting the certainty of the beliefs of both parties regarding the manager’s fairness. To the extent that the initial events are encounters, fairness perceptions negotiated through encounters will influence perceptions during exchanges and justice negotiations.

Concluding Remarks

This justice negotiation framework contributes to the field of organizational justice in a number of respects. First, we answer calls in the justice literature “to examine how social entity justice perceptions are formed and are related to event justice perceptions” (Choi, 2008, p. 526). Specifically, we clarify how entity perceptions are formed over time by applying insights from the identity negotiation paradigm to the topic of fairness perceptions. Furthermore, we outline how event and entity perceptions are related by clarifying three types of events through which entity perceptions are negotiated. These event types were identified through concurrent consideration of the “encounter versus exchange” debate in the justice literature outlined by Bies (2001, 2005) as well as Swann’s (1987) distinction of “routine versus crisis” identity negotiation activities. Justice perceptions are negotiated during routine events (encounters and situations involving exchanges). Justice negotiation events, in which justice perceptions disagree and are explicitly discussed by the parties involved, result from a manager receiving identity-discrepant feedback. This insight contributes to and refines the event–entity dialogue.

Second, this justice negotiation framework proposed herein offers justice scholars a way to theoretically link research on manager and subordinate behaviors. To this point, justice research has studied manager and subordinate behaviors independently of one another, either focusing on how managers can affect subordinates’ fairness perceptions (e.g., Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003), why managers might be motivated to adhere to or violate justice rules (e.g., Scott et al., 2009; Zapata et al., 2013), or how subordinates can influence their managers to act fairly (e.g., Korsgaard, Roberson, & Rymph, 1998; Scott, Colquitt, & Zapata-Phelan, 2007). Taken together, these research streams illustrate that influence processes flow both ways in the manager–subordinate dyad. Our justice negotiation perspective links these prior approaches by reconciling and summarizing them into a model which considers both directions of influence simultaneously. Third, this model helps explain why Holtz and Harold (2009) found variation in perceptions of managerial fairness over time. Identity negotiation theory implies that people’s fairness judgments (including manager’s self-views) may vary over time. Additionally, the amount of importance the manager places on his or her fairness identity (Proposition 3) may also change over time.

Finally, our justice negotiation model also indicates why justice researchers might need to move beyond a focus on subordinate impressions to jointly consider manager self-perceptions of fairness and the importance of a fair identity vis-à-vis other identities. This aspect of the framework is based on, yet expands on logic advanced by Scott et al. (2009) regarding why managers adhere to or violate justice rules. By explicitly acknowledging that self-perceptions of fairness vary in level and importance, it clarifies why some managers do not attend to fairness concerns (i.e., attempt to negotiate a fair identity over time). Taking managerial self-perceptions into account might be particularly informative in longitudinal research, since the justice negotiation perspective indicates that a manager will almost certainly show their “true colors” over time, even if initial events communicate fairness.

These ideas should also interest those conducting research on interpersonal relations in organizations. The identity negotiation paradigm is being accepted by management scholars in areas such as group dynamics (Swann et al., 2004), negotiations (Kim, Diekmann, & Tenbrunsel, 2003), and trust (Kim, Dirks, & Cooper, 2009). Identity negotiation is clearly relevant to other areas, such as leadership and mentoring relationships (see Swann et al., 2009, for further discussion regarding identity negotiation in the work context).

Directions for Future Research

Since research on entity perceptions of justice is still in a relatively nascent stage, opportunities exist for building knowledge with the current framework offering numerous avenues for research. One notable contribution of the framework is the concurrent consideration of manager and subordinate perceptions. Thus, research should begin by looking at fairness perceptions of both parties over time and linking these dual perceptions to dyadic outcomes (i.e., Proposition 7). To do so, however, a valid measure of entity fairness is needed for managers. Two entity measures of manager fairness exist (Choi, 2008; Holtz & Harold, 2009), but both are subordinate-response and may not be easily altered to gather valid self-reports from managers or take into account social desirability concerns. Also, to the extent that this process is implicit, it may be difficult to attain accurate self-reports, particularly from managers.

A good deal of our discussion focused on justice negotiation events. Since this event type is new to the justice literature, researchers should focus on these explicit negotiations, noting the joint roles of (and effects on) managers and subordinates. Justice negotiation events could be studied by collecting retrospective accounts through interviews or diaries. Negotiating strategies could be studied in the laboratory by inciting subjects to negotiate by offering identity discrepant feedback (and then recording what tactics they use) and/or exposing subjects to various negotiating tactics and seeing how they react. More research is also needed on how overall justice perceptions are negotiated across various justice types (i.e., Proposition 5).

Research could focus on the relative influence of managers and subordinates in this iterative negotiation process. This perspective acknowledges that either party can influence the other as they jointly form a perception of the manager’s fairness. Another interesting question is whether (or under what conditions) opposing views of managers versus subordinates prevail. Swann et al. (2009) speculate that in manager–subordinate negotiations, which inherently involve asymmetrical power relations, “subordinates will experience more pressure to honor the leaders’ identities than vice-versa” (p. 96). Yet we suspect that this may not be the case for the fairness identity of managers. For fairness, subordinate opinions may hold more influence, particularly if an organization has strong norms for fair treatment which pressure managers to maintain a fairness identity (Cooper & Scandura, 2012). Thus, in addition to gauging the weight allotted to each type of negotiation event (Proposition 5) and assessing whether a common perception of fairness is reached (Proposition 6), research should discern which party has more influence in guiding the content of this entity perception.

Aside from the guidance offered to justice researchers, leader–member exchange (LMX) scholars can advance research on leader–member relationships in new ways by attending to these ideas. LMX quality is a key relational outcome that could be explored vis-à-vis Proposition 7. If a manager realizes that an employee does not accept his or her fairness self-view, the manager may react by pulling away from this employee, leading to low LMX. These notions regarding LMX were mentioned by Swann et al. (2009): “Employees who fail to honor important aspects of their supervisor’s identity are likely to undermine leader-member exchange (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), perhaps inspiring ostracism from the leader’s in-group” (p. 95). Future research integrating identity negotiation, fairness, and LMX could be further informed by theoretical discussions of fairness and differentiation (Scandura, 1999). In fact, identity negotiation likely contributes to LMX differentiation (Erdogan & Bauer, 2010) with the more coveted high LMX relationships occurring with employees who confirm the manager’s self-views. To conclude, once a manager’s fairness identity is negotiated, the implication is that the manager’s fair identity will enable a more effective working relationship that translates into outcomes of interest to organizations. Thus, our model has implications for practice as well.

Practical Implications

For managers, being seen as fair is central to building positive relationships with subordinates and achieving optimum functioning of the work unit. Our discussion, regarding how a general perception of fairness is formed, offers a number of key takeaways for attaining and maintaining a fair identity. First, by emphasizing the role of justice negotiation events, managers are more aware that subordinates may offer explicit feedback regarding fairness. Moreover, when explicit feedback is given, managers should be careful not to react defensively. Justice negotiation events should be seen as an opportunity to address fairness concerns and negotiate the preferred fairness identity. To capitalize on these discussions, managers would be wise to develop their conflict management skills.

Second, managers should negotiate a positive fairness identity as early as possible in the relationship since entity perceptions will affect future events. Managers should also be cognizant of the fact that they are never completely “off the hook” when it comes to managing their fairness. Although entity perceptions can be formed early on, both parties continue to negotiate this aspect of identity across the three types of events throughout the entire working relationship. A pivotal justice negotiation event could alter perceptions of managerial fairness at any point. Organizations must be mindful that they often communicate the identities members are supposed to assume (Swann et al., 2009). Thus, if organizations emphasize certain attributes, which conflict or compete with the fairness identity (e.g., being efficient, powerful, or frugal), they may unwittingly undermine managerial efforts to establish fair identities. In sum, a working understanding of how events develop into a fairness identity and how this identity must be managed over time is inherently useful and beneficial for managers and organizations. Our article has articulated the development of the fair identity, therefore making these implicit processes explicit so that managers can better understand how to optimize long-term manager–subordinate relationships.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Steven Blader, Jason Colquitt, Marie Dasborough, Debra Shapiro, John Slocum, and Ben Tepper for their comments on an earlier version of this article.

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 supported by a grant from the University of Miami James W. McLamore Summer Award in Business and Social Sciences.

Notes

Author Biographies

Cecily D. Cooper is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of Miami School of Business. She received her PhD from the University of Southern California. Her research focuses on interpersonal trust, manager-subordinate relationships, and social influence

Terri A. Scandura is a Professor of Management at the University of Miami School of Business Administration. She received her PhD from the University of Cincinnati. Her research focuses on leadership, LMX, mentorship and applied research methods.

References

Ambrose

Cropanzano

(2003). A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: An examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 266-275.

Ashford

Tsui

(1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 251-280.

Bartol

Durham

Poon

(2001). Influence of performance evaluation rating segmentation on motivation and fairness perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1106-1119.

Bies

(1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 289-319.

Bies

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

Cropanzano

(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89-118). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bies

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

Colquitt

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 85-112). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bies

Moag

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

Sheppard

Bazerman

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

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, 58-76.

Brocker

Wiesenfeld

Martin

(1995). Decision frame, procedural justice, and survivors’ reactions to job layoffs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(1), 59-68.

10.

Bugental

(2000). Acquisition of the algorithms of social life: A domain-based approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 187-219.

11.

Burke

(1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56, 836-849.

12.

Choi

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

13.

Colquitt

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

14.

Colquitt

Conlon

Wesson

Porter

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

15.

Conlon

Meyer

Nowakowski

(2005). How does organizational justice affect, performance, withdrawal, and counterproductive behavior? In Greenberg

Colquitt

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 301-327). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

16.

Cooper

Scandura

(2012). Was I unfair? Antecedents and consequences of managerial perspective taking in a predicament of injustice. In Schreisheim

Neider

(Eds.), Research in management: Perspectives on trust and justice (Vol. 9—Research in Management Series; pp. 107-138). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

17.

Cropanzano

Byrne

Bobocel

Rupp

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

18.

Ronde

Swann

(1998). Partner verification: Restoring shattered images of our intimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 374-382.

19.

Detert

Burris

(2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884.

20.

Eisenstadt

Leippe

(1994). The self-comparison process and self-discrepant feedback: Consequences of learning you are what you thought you were not. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 611-626.

21.

Erdogan

Bauer

(2010). Differentiated leader-member exchanges: The buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1104-1120.

22.

Giesler

Josephs

Swann

(1996). Self-verification in clinical depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 358-368.

23.

Gill

Swann

(2004). On what it means to know someone: A matter of pragmatics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 405-418.

24.

Greenberg

(1988). Cultivating an image of justice: Looking fair on the job. Academy of Management Executive, 2, 155-157.

25.

Greenberg

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

26.

Greenberg

(1993). 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: Erlbaum.

27.

Greenberg

(1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 288-297.

28.

Hilton

Darley

(1985). Constructing other persons: A limit on the effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(1), 1-18.

29.

Hollensbe

Khazanchi

Masterson

(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, 1099-1116.

30.

Holtz

Harold

(2009). Fair today, fair tomorrow? A longitudinal investigation of overall justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1185-1199.

31.

Johnson

Lord

(2010). Implicit effects of justice on self-identity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 681-695.

32.

Jones

Skarlicki

(2005). The effects of overhearing peers discuss an authority’s fairness reputation on reactions to subsequent treatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 363-372.

33.

Karambayya

Brett

(1989). Managers handling disputes: Third-party roles and perceptions of fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 687-704.

34.

Kim

Diekmann

Tenbrunsel

(2003). Flattery may get you somewhere: The strategic implications of providing positive vs. negative feedback about ability vs. ethicality in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 225-243.

35.

Kim

Dirks

Cooper

(2009). The repair of trust: A dynamic bi-lateral perspective and multi-level conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 34, 401-422.

36.

Konovsky

Cropanzano

(1991). The perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698-707.

37.

Korsgaard

Roberson

Rymph

(1998). What motivates fairness? The role of subordinate assertive behavior on managers’ interactional fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 731-744.

38.

Leung

(2005). How generalizable are justice effects across cultures? In Greenberg

Colquitt

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 555-586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

39.

Madon

Smith

Jussim

Russell

Eccles

Palumbo

Walkiewicz

(2001). Am I as you see me or do you see me as I am? Self-fulfilling prophecies and self-verification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1214-1224.

40.

McNulty

Swann

(1994). Identity negotiation in roommate relationships: The self as architect and consequence of social reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1012-1023.

41.

Meindl

(1989). Managing to be fair: An exploration of values, motives, and leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 252-276.

42.

Mikula

Petri

Tanzer

(1990). What people regard as unjust: Types and structures of everyday experiences of injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 133-149.

43.

Pelham

(1991). On confidence and consequence: The certainty and importance of self-knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 518-530.

44.

Scandura

(1999). Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 25-40.

45.

Scandura

Graen

(1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436.

46.

Scott

Colquitt

Paddock

(2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 756-769.

47.

Scott

Colquitt

Zapata-Phelan

(2007). Justice as a dependent variable: Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1597-1609.

48.

Shaw

Wild

Colquitt

(2003). To justify or excuse? A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 444-458.

49.

Sias

Jablin

(1995). Differential superior-subordinate relations, perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human Communication Research, 22(1), 5-38.

50.

Skarlicki

Folger

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

51.

Skowronski

Carlson

(1987). Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 689-699.

52.

Swann

(1984). The quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of pragmatics. Psychological Review, 91, 457-477.

53.

Swann

(1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038-1051.

54.

Swann

Bosson

Pelham

(2002). Different partners, different selves: Strategic verification of circumscribed identities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1215-1228.

55.

Swann

De La Ronde

Hixon

(1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857-869.

56.

Swann

Ely

(1984). A battle of wills: Self-verification versus behavioral confirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1287-1302.

57.

Swann

Johnson

Bosson

(2009). Identity negotiation at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 81-109.

58.

Swann

Milton

Polzer

(2000). Should we create a niche or fall in line? Identity negotiation and small group effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 238-250.

59.

Swann

Pelham

(2002). Who wants out when the going gets good? Psychological investment and preference for self-verifying college roommates. Journal of Self and Identity, 1, 219-233.

60.

Swann

Pelham

Chidester

(1988). Change through paradox: Using self-verification to alter beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 268-273.

61.

Swann

Pelham

Krull

(1989). Agreeable fancy or disagreeable truth? Reconciling self-enhancement and self-verification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 782-791.

62.

Swann

Polzer

Seyle

(2004). Finding value in diversity: Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse groups. Academy of Management Review, 29, 9-27.

63.

Swann

Stein-Seroussi

Giesler

(1992). Why people self-verify. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 392-401.

64.

Swann

Stein-Seroussi

McNulty

(1992). Outcasts in a white lie society: The enigmatic worlds of people with negative self-conceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 618-624.

65.

Vignoles

Golledge

Regalia

Manzi

Scabini

(2006). Beyond self-esteem: Influence of multiple motives on identity construction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 308-333.

66.

Wiesenfeld

Swann

Brockner

Bartel

(2007). Is more fairness always preferred? Self-esteem moderates reactions to procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1235-1253.

67.

Zacks

Tversky

(2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 3-21.

68.

Zapata

Olsen

Martins

(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.