It has been argued that if organizational decisions and managerial actions are deemed unfair or unjust, the affected employees experience feelings of anger, outrage and resentment

It has been argued that if organizational decisions and managerial actions are deemed unfair or unjust, the affected employees experience feelings of anger, outrage and resentment; There is also evidence that disgruntled employees retaliate to Organizational Injustice, directly: e.g., by theft, vandalism and sabotage or indirectly by withdrawal and resistance behavior. Engaging in socially responsible behavior has been a great concern to leaders of Today’s organizations. Here again, OB specialists have sought to explain this behavior, and their efforts will be outlined in this research.As a subject of philosophical interest, the study of justice dates back to the times of Plato and Socrates (Ryan, 1993). However, research on organizational justice started with Adams’ work on equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965) and has progressed steadily over time. Greenberg (1990b) explained organizational justice as a literature “grown around attempts to describe and explain the role of fairness as a consideration in the workplace. Adams’ work led to a research period concentrating on fairness of pay or outcomes at work place (Deutsch, 1985).

In other words, the equity theory emphasized the perceived fairness of outcomes, i.e., distributive fairness. Equity theory is based on the notions of relative deprivation and social comparison. Individuals in organizations are expected to compare their own input to output ratio to the ratio of a referent who could be the self considered at another point of time or others in the past, present, or expected future to determine the level of fairness.

According to equity theory, when compared ratios are not equal, the individuals may perceive inequity and so may involve in behaviors meant to restore the cognitive perception of equality (they may modify their effort, or change their perceptions of inputs or outcomes).

However, the focus of this research shifted to procedural justice: the perceived fairness of the process by which outcomes are determined /arrived at, because of inability of equity theory and distributive justice models to fully predict and explain peoples’ reactions to perceived injustice. This shift expanded the study of distributive justice, since research findings revealed that distribution of rewards was not always as important to individuals as the process by which

they were allocated.

Organizational justice refers to “the just and ethical treatment of individuals within an Organization” organizational justice is “the term commonly used by organizational psychologists to refer to the just and fair manner in which organizations treat their employees”. The dictionary defines the word Justice as fairness (Popular Oxford New-Age Primary School Dictionary). However, in daily life, the term justice is used to mean “oughtness” or “righteousness”. In organizational sciences research, justice is considered to be socially constructed which means that an act is considered to be just if it is perceived so by the individuals on the basis of empirical research.

Corporate Social Responsibility, the forms it takes, and the nature of the relationship between responsible behavior and financial profitability.

Corporate social responsibility refers to business practices that adhere to ethical values, that comply with legal requirements, and that promote the betterment of individuals and the community at large. It’s most popular forms include making charitable contributions to the community, preserving the environment, investing in a socially responsible manner, and promoting the welfare of employees. Generally, research shows that socially responsible companies tend to be more profitable than companies that are less socially responsible. This reflects the virtuous circle, the tendency for successful companies to be socially responsible because they can afford to do so, which in turn, helps their chances of being even more financially successful.

Organizational Justice: Fairness Matters

Suppose you received a failing grade in a course. You don’t like it, of course, but can you say that the grade is unfair? To answer this question, you would likely take several things into consideration. For example, does the grade accurately reflect how well you performed in the course? Were your scores added accurately and were they computed in an unbiased fashion? Has the professor treated you in a polite and professional fashion? Finally, has the professor communicated the grading process to you adequately? In judging how fairly you have been treated, questions such as these are likely to be raised—and your answers are likely to have a considerable impact on how you feel about your grade, the professor, and even the school as a whole.

Moreover, they are likely to have a profound effect on how you respond, such as whether you quietly accept the grade, complain about it to someone, or even quit school entirely. Although this example involves you as a student, the same considerations are likely to arise in the workplace. In that context, instead of talking about grades from professors, concerns about justice may take analogous forms. Does your salary reflect your work accomplishments?

How was your performance evaluation determined? Were you treated with dignity and respect by your boss? Were you given important job information in a thorough and timely manner? Matters such as these are relevant to organizational justice—the study of people’s perceptions of fairness in organizations. My discussion of organizational justice focuses on three key areas—the major forms of organizational justice, the relationships between these forms, and suggestions for promoting justice in organizations.

Forms of Organizational Justice and Their Effects

The idea that justice is a multifaceted concept follows from the variety of questions just raised, everything from how much you get paid to how well you are treated by your boss. Organizational justice takes the four different forms identified here. Each of these forms of justice has been found to have different effects in organizations.

Distributive Justice. On the job, people are concerned with getting their “fair share” of resources. We all want to be paid fairly for the work we do and we want to be adequately recognized for our efforts and any special contributions we bring to the job. Distributive justice is the form of organizational justice that focuses on people’s beliefs that they have received fair amounts of valued work-related outcomes (e.g., pay, recognition, etc.). For example, workers consider the formal appraisals of their performance to be fair to the extent that these ratings are based on their actual level of performance (for an example, People who believe that they have been ill-treated on the job tend to experience high levels of stress and also feel dissatisfied with their jobs and the companies in which they work. Feelings of distributive justice can have a great impact on people’s motivation to perform their jobs.) A recent study provides good insight into this process.

Researchers conducting this investigation compared two groups of workers with respect to their feelings about distributive justice: a group of local workers from Singapore and a group of foreign workers, Chinese people who worked in Singapore. In this setting, foreign workers tend not to be paid commensurate with their skills. Not surprisingly, the foreign workers expressed higher levels of distributive injustice and were less productive on their jobs. Because they received less, they did less, as distributive justice dictates. These findings are illustrative of many that demonstrate people’s keen sensitivity to their perceptions of the fairness by which resources are distributed on the job. In general, the more people believe that their rewards (e.g., pay, work assignments) are distributed in a fair manner; the more satisfied they are with them.

Procedural justice – refers to people’s perceptions of the fairness of the procedures used to determine the outcomes they receive. Again, let’s consider as an example the formal appraisals of an individual’s job performance. Workers consider such ratings to be fair to the extent that certain procedure were followed, such as when raters were believed to be familiar with their work and when they believed that the standards used to judge them were applied to everyone equally.

Interpersonal justice – People’s perceptions of the fairness of the manner in which they are treated by others (usually, authority figures). Imagine that you were just laid off from your job. You’re not happy about it, of course, but suppose that your boss explains this situation to you in a manner that takes some of the sting out of it. Although your boss cannot do anything about this high-level corporate decision, he or she is very sensitive to the harm this causes you and expresses concern for you in a highly sensitive and caring manner.

Research has shown that people experiencing situations such as this tend to accept their layoffs as being fair and hold positive feelings about their supervisors. Importantly, such individuals are less inclined to sue their former companies on the grounds of wrongful termination than those who believe they were treated in an opposite manner—that is, an insensitive and disrespectful fashion. The type of justice demonstrated in this example is known as interpersonal justice. This refers to people’s perceptions of the fairness of the manner in which they are treated by others (typically, authority figures).

Informational justice – People’s perceptions of the fairness of the information used as the basis for making a decision. Outcomes (as in the case of distributive justice), but leads them to reject the entire system as unfair. Procedural justice affects people’s tendencies to follow organizational rules: Workers are not inclined to follow an organization’s rules when they have reason to believe that its procedures are inherently unfair. And, of course, when this occurs, serious problems are likely to arise. Accordingly, everyone in an organization especially top official—would be well advised to adhere to the criteria for promoting procedural justice summarized in this research.

Informational Justice – Imagine that you are a heavy smoker of cigarettes and learn that your company has just imposed a smoking ban. Although you may recognize that it’s the right thing to do, you are unhappy about it because the ruling forces you to change your behavior and break an addictive habit. Will you accept the smoking ban as fair and do your best to go along with it? Research suggests that you will do so only under certain circumstances—if you are given clear and thorough information about the need for the smoking ban (e.g., the savings to the company and improvements to the health of employees). The form of justice illustrated in this example is known as informational justice.

This refers to people’s perceptions of the fairness of the information used as the basis for making a decision. Because detailed information was provided about the basis for implementing the smoking ban, informational justice was high, leading people to accept the fairness of the smoking ban. A key explanation for this phenomenon is that informational justice prompts feelings of being valued by others in an organization. This is known as the group-value explanation of organizational justice. The basic idea is that people believe they are considered an important part of the organization when an organizational official takes the time to explain thoroughly to them the rationale behind a decision. And people experiencing such feelings may be expected to believe that they are being treated in a fair manner.

Relationships between Various Forms of Justice

Although we have been describing the various forms of organizational justice separately, it would be misleading to assume that they are completely independent of one another. In fact, researchers have found some well-established relationships between the various forms of justice. Many different studies have reported that the relationship between outcome favorability and procedural justice takes the form summarized here. Specifically, people’s reactions to favorable outcomes are affected little by the fairness of the procedure, whereas people’s reactions to unfavorable outcomes are enhanced by the use of fair procedures.

Same would apply to other outcomes as well, such as pay or recognition on the job.) Now, imagine that your grade either was the result of a simple arithmetic error (i.e., procedural justice was low) or that it was computed in an accurate, unbiased fashion (i.e., procedural justice was high). Generally speaking, you will respond more positively to the fair procedure than the unfair procedure, thinking more favorably of the professor and the school as a whole. (of course, the analogous effect also would apply in organizations.) So far, this is nothing new. Consider, however, what happens when you combine these effects, looking at the overall relationship between the favorability of outcomes together with the fairness of procedures to arrive at those outcomes. This relationship, which takes the interactive form, has been very well established among scientists studying organizational justice.

The Preservative connection between Interpersonal Justice and Informational Justice

In contrast to the interactive relationship between distributive justice and procedural justice, the relationship between interpersonal justice and informational justice is far simpler. Research has shown that perceptions of justice are enhanced when people explain outcomes using a lot of detail (i.e., when informational justice is high) and also when people explain outcomes in a manner that demonstrates a considerable amount of dignity and respect (i.e., when interpersonal justice is high).

What happens when these effects are combined—that is, when information is presented in a manner that is both socially sensitive and highly informative? Research provides a clear answer, the effects are additive, in other words, each of these factors contributes somewhat to people’s perceptions of fairness, but together their effects are magnified. The more interpersonal justice and more informational justice is shown, the more people believe things are fair. This additive relationship between interpersonal justice and informational justice can be very valuable for supervisors to take into account when managing employees.

Strategies for Promoting Organizational Justice

Treating people fairly on the job surely is a noble objective. Although many people are concerned about being fair for its own sake, of course, there’s also a good practical reason for treating employees fairly. Specifically, individuals who believe they have been unfairly treated in any or all of the ways described respond quite negatively. We know for example, that people who feel unfairly treated are likely to do such things as work less hard, steal from their employers, do poor-quality work, or even quit their jobs altogether and then sue their former employers. Naturally, managers are likely to seek organizational justice to avoid these problems. In addition to minimizing such negative reactions managers also are likely to seek the positive reactions associated with being perceived as fair. For example, fairness has been associated with such desirable behaviors as helping one’s fellow workers and going along with organizational policies.

Additional strategies that can be used to promote organizational justice:

Promoting organizational justice can be done in several ways. First, it is important to pay workers what they deserve—the “going rate” for the work done wherever they work. Underpaying workers promotes dissatisfaction, leading to turnover. Second, workers should be given a voice—that is, some input into decisions. This may involve such strategies as holding regular meetings, conducting employee surveys, keeping an “open door policy,” and using suggestion systems.

Third, follow openly fair procedures. Specifically, promote procedural fairness such as by using unbiased, accurate information and applying decision rules consistently. Managers also should openly describe the fair procedures they are using. Fourth, managers should explain decisions thoroughly in a manner demonstrating dignity and respect. Fifth, workers should be trained to be fair, such as by adhering to the principles described in this work.

It is argued that if organizational decisions and management actions are found to be unfair or unfair, affected employees will experience feelings of anger, resentment, and resentment; There is evidence that more dissatisfied employees retaliate directly against organizational injustice: for example, with theft, vandalism, and sabotage, or indirectly with retreat and resistance. Engaging in socially responsible behavior is of great concern to today’s leaders of organizations. Here again, OB experts sought to explain this behavior, and their efforts are described in this study.The study of justice as a subject of philosophical interest dates back to the Platonic and Socratic periods (Ryan, 1993). However, research on organizational justice began with Adams ’work on the theory of equality (Adams, 1963, 1965) and developed steadily over time. Greenberg (1990b) described organizational justice as “literature that grew up around attempts to describe and explain justice as a workplace focus”. Adams ’work led to a period of research focused on the fairness of wages or results in the workplace (Deutsch, 1985).

In other words, capital theory asserted that the results were definite, i.e., fair in distribution. The theory of equality is based on the concepts of relative deprivation and social comparison. Individuals in organizations are expected to compare their input and output ratios with the ratio of a person or other past, present, or expected future reference that can be considered at a different point in time to determine the level of fairness.

According to the theory of equality, when the compared ratios are not equal, people may experience inequality and therefore engage in behaviors aimed at restoring their perception of knowledge about equality (whether they change their efforts or about input or outcomes). may change their perceptions).

However, the main focus of this study has shifted to procedural justice: equality theory and distributive justice models fail to fully predict and explain people’s attitudes toward perceived injustice, and the fairness of the process in which the results are determined / achieved. This shift has expanded the study of distribution fairness, as research has shown that the distribution of rewards is not always as important as the process for individuals.

they were separated.

Organizational justice is the term “fair and ethical treatment of individuals within an organization” Organizational justice is a term often used by organizational psychologists to mean that organizations treat their employees fairly and equitably. In the dictionary, the word Justice is defined as justice (a popular dictionary of Oxford New Age Elementary School). However, in everyday life, the term justice is used to mean “should” or “justice”. In the study of organizational sciences, justice is considered to be built on a social basis, which means that behavior is considered fair if it is so accepted by individuals on the basis of empirical research.

Corporate social responsibility, its forms and the nature of the relationship between responsible behavior and financial profitability.

Corporate social responsibility refers to business practices that adhere to ethical values, meet legal requirements, and contribute to the well-being of individuals and the public as a whole. These most popular forms include adding charitable funds to the community, protecting the environment, socially responsible investments, and improving employee welfare. In general, research shows that socially responsible companies benefit more than less socially responsible companies. This reflects the quality circle, the tendency of successful companies to be socially responsible because they are capable of it, which in turn helps them to be more financially successful.

Organizational justice: issues of justice

Suppose you fail a course. You don’t like it, of course, but can you say the rating is unfair? To answer this question, you will probably want to consider a few things. For example, does the grade clearly reflect how well you did in the course? Were your scores clearly added and were they considered unbiased? Did the professor treat you politely and professionally? Finally, did the professor adequately inform you of the assessment process? When assessing how fair you are, questions like these are unlikely to arise, and your answers can have a significant impact on your attitude toward your class, your professor, and even school in general.

Also, how can they affect your response, such as whether you quietly accept a grade, complain to someone, or even drop out of school altogether. Although this example may cover you as a student, similar thoughts may arise in the workplace. In this context, instead of talking about professors ’assessments, concerns about justice may take similar forms. Does your salary reflect your success at work?

How was the evaluation of your activity determined? Has your boss treated you with respect and dignity? Were you given important job information complete and on time? Issues like these are relevant to organizational justice - the study of people’s perceptions of justice in organizations. My discussion of organizational justice focuses on three main areas - the main forms of organizational justice, the relationship between these forms, and suggestions for the development of justice in organizations.

Forms of organizational justice and their impact

The idea that justice is a multifaceted concept stems from a variety of newly raised questions, from how much you get paid and how well your boss treats you. Organizational justice takes four different forms as defined here. It has been found that each of these forms of justice has a different impact on organizations.

Distributing justice. In the workplace, people are busy getting their “fair share”. We all want to be paid fairly for the work we do, and we want to be recognized for our efforts and any special contribution we make to the work. Distributive justice is a form of organizational justice that aims to make people believe that they have received a fair amount of high work-related results (e.g., salary, recognition, etc.). For example, workers consider a formal assessment of their performance to be fair based on these ratings based on their actual level of performance (e.g., people who feel they have been mistreated at work have higher experience) Stress level, as well as their performance they feel dissatisfied with their places and the companies they work for. Distributive justice can have a major impact on people’s motivation to do their jobs.) Recent research provides a better understanding of this process.

The researchers who conducted this study compared two groups of workers with their attitudes toward distribution justice: a group of local workers from Singapore and a group of foreign workers, Chinese working in Singapore. Under these conditions, foreign workers are not paid according to their skills. Not surprisingly, foreign workers reported high levels of distribution injustice and were less productive in their work. They distributed less because they received less, because the distributor demands justice. These findings are understandable to many, demonstrating people’s sensitivity to their perceptions of the fairness of resource allocation in the workplace. In general, more people believe that their rewards (e.g., salary, job assignments) are distributed fairly; how satisfied you are with them.

Procedural fairness refers to people’s perceptions of the fairness of the procedures used to determine the results they receive. Again, let’s look at a formal assessment of an individual’s performance as an example. Workers find such ratings to be fair to the extent that certain procedures are followed, for example, when they believe that the ratings are familiar with their work and that the standards used to evaluate them apply equally to all.

Interpersonal Justice - People's perceptions of the fairness of their dealings with others (usually representatives). Imagine you are fired now. You certainly won’t be happy about it, but suppose your boss explains the situation to you in a way that removes some of the stings. Even if your boss can’t do anything about this high-level corporate decision, he or she is very sensitive to the damage he or she will do to you and will be very sensitive and caring for you.

Studies have shown that people who experience such situations accept their dismissal as fair and have positive feelings about their bosses. Importantly, such individuals are less likely to go to court than those they believe have treated their former companies in the opposite way, i.e., indifferently and disrespectfully. The type of justice demonstrated in this example is called interpersonal justice. This refers to people’s perceptions of the fairness of their treatment of others (usually authorized persons).

Information fairness is people’s opinion that the information used as a basis for decision making is fair. The results (as in the case of distributive justice), however, lead them to reject the whole system as unfair. Procedural justice affects people’s tendency to follow organizational rules: when workers are the basis for considering organizational procedures to be unfair on their own, they are less likely to follow the rules. And, of course, when this happens, serious problems can arise. Accordingly, everyone in the organization, especially a senior official, is advised to follow the criteria for ensuring procedural justice set out in this study.

Information Justice - Imagine you are a heavy smoker and find out that your company has banned smoking. Even if you think this is right, you are dissatisfied with it because the ruler will force you to change your behavior and give up the habit of dependence. Do you accept the ban on smoking as fair and do your best to comply with it? Studies show that you only do this in certain situations - if you are given clear and complete information about the need to ban smoking (e.g., saving the company and improving the health of employees). The form of justice described in this example is called information justice.

This refers to people’s opinions that the information used as a basis for decision making is fair. As detailed information was provided on the rationale for enforcing the smoking ban, the level of information fairness was high, leading people to believe that the smoking ban was fair. The main explanation for this phenomenon is that information justice evokes feelings of appreciation by others in the organization. This is known as group-value interpretation of organizational justice. The basic idea is that when people take the time to explain to them in detail the basics of decision making by an organization official, they see them as an important part of the organization. And people who experience such feelings can be confident that they will be treated fairly.

The relationship between different forms of justice

Although we have described the different forms of organizational justice separately, it would be wrong to assume that they are completely independent of each other. Indeed, researchers have found several clear links between different forms of justice. Many different studies have reported that the relationship between ease of outcome and procedural fairness has a generalized form here. In particular, people’s attitudes toward positive outcomes have little effect on the fairness of the procedure, whereas people’s attitudes toward undesirable outcomes are enhanced by the use of fair procedures.

The same goes for other results, such as pay or recognition.) Now imagine that your estimate is the result of a simple arithmetic error (i.e., low procedural fairness) or that it is clearly calculated . , impartial fashion (i.e., where procedural justice is high). In general, you respond more positively to an unfair procedure than to an unfair procedure, thinking more about the professor and the school in general. (Of course, a similar effect can be applied to organizations as well.) So far, this is nothing new. However, when combining these effects, consider the general relationship between the acceptability of the results and the fairness of the procedures to achieve these results, and consider what would happen. This relationship, which has an interactive form, is very well established among scholars studying organizational justice.

The protective link between interpersonal justice and information justice

In contrast to the relationship between distributive litigation and procedural justice, the relationship between interpersonal justice and information justice is much simpler. Research has shown that the concept of ethics is when people interpret results with too much detail (i.e., when the level of information fairness is high) and when people explain their results in a way that is highly valued and respected ( that is, in interpersonal relationships). justice is high).

What happens when these effects are combined, that is, when information is presented in a way that is socially sensitive and highly informative? Research gives a clear answer, add effects, in other words, each of these factors affects people’s fairness, but their impact is amplified together. The more interpersonal justice and information justice is demonstrated, the more people believe that things are fair. This additional link between interpersonal justice and information justice can be invaluable for managers to consider in personnel management.

Strategies for the development of organizational justice

Being fair to people in the workplace is definitely a noble goal. Although many people are concerned about being fair to their own interests, there is certainly a good practical reason to be fair to employees. In particular, individuals who feel that they have been treated unfairly in one or all of the ways described will respond very negatively. For example, we know that people who are treated unfairly can do things like work less, kidnap an employer, do poor quality work, or even give up work altogether, and then sue their former employer. Naturally, managers can seek organizational justice to avoid these problems. In addition to minimizing such negative reactions, managers can also look for positive reactions that are considered fair. Justice, for example, was associated with the necessary behaviors, such as helping their colleagues and engaging in organizational policy.

Additional strategies that can be used to promote organizational justice include:

Promoting organizational justice can be done in several ways. First, it’s important to pay workers what they deserve - wherever they work, a “sequence” for the work done. Low-wage workers exacerbate dissatisfaction, leading to turnover. Second, workers need to be voted on, which means they have to contribute a little bit to decision-making. This could include strategies such as holding regular meetings, conducting surveys among employees, conducting an “open door policy” and using bid systems.

Third, follow open fair procedures. In particular, promoting procedural justice, such as the use of impartial, accurate information and the consistent application of decision rules. Managers should also clearly describe the fair procedures they use. Fourth, managers need to explain decisions thoroughly in a way that is dignified and respectful. Fifth, workers should be trained to be fair, for example, to follow the principles set out in this work.