Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional injustice

Jochen Reb, Barry M Goldman, Laura J. Kray, Russell Cropanzano

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

61 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To alleviate the negative effects of workplace unfairness and resulting conflict, organizations can take remedial action to atone for a perceived injustice. We argue that the effectiveness of organizational remedies may depend on the match between type of injustice perceived and type of remedy offered. Specifically, based on the multiple needs model of justice (b17Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001), we expect procedural injustice to be particularly associated with preference for instrumental remedies that address the need for control. On the other hand, interactional injustice should be particularly associated with preference for punitive remedies that address the need for meaning. Confirming this hypothesis, a field study involving recently terminated employees found that procedural injustice was positively associated with preference for an instrumental remedy (monetary compensation) and interactional injustice was positively associated with preference for a punitive remedy (disciplinary action against those involved in the termination). Further supporting the hypothesis, a laboratory experiment manipulating the unfairness of performance feedback found greater preference for an instrumental remedy relative to a punitive remedy following a procedural injustice than following an interactional injustice. In discussing these results, we present a taxonomy of organizational remedies as they relate to the multiple needs model of justice. Practical implications are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)31-64
Number of pages34
JournalPersonnel Psychology
Volume59
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2006

Fingerprint

Social Justice
Workplace
Organizations
Remedies
Interaction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)
  • Applied Psychology

Cite this

Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional injustice. / Reb, Jochen; Goldman, Barry M; Kray, Laura J.; Cropanzano, Russell.

In: Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59, No. 1, 03.2006, p. 31-64.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d2379fbd7b424ffbad72b0d20bce34a4,
title = "Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional injustice",
abstract = "To alleviate the negative effects of workplace unfairness and resulting conflict, organizations can take remedial action to atone for a perceived injustice. We argue that the effectiveness of organizational remedies may depend on the match between type of injustice perceived and type of remedy offered. Specifically, based on the multiple needs model of justice (b17Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001), we expect procedural injustice to be particularly associated with preference for instrumental remedies that address the need for control. On the other hand, interactional injustice should be particularly associated with preference for punitive remedies that address the need for meaning. Confirming this hypothesis, a field study involving recently terminated employees found that procedural injustice was positively associated with preference for an instrumental remedy (monetary compensation) and interactional injustice was positively associated with preference for a punitive remedy (disciplinary action against those involved in the termination). Further supporting the hypothesis, a laboratory experiment manipulating the unfairness of performance feedback found greater preference for an instrumental remedy relative to a punitive remedy following a procedural injustice than following an interactional injustice. In discussing these results, we present a taxonomy of organizational remedies as they relate to the multiple needs model of justice. Practical implications are discussed.",
author = "Jochen Reb and Goldman, {Barry M} and Kray, {Laura J.} and Russell Cropanzano",
year = "2006",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00773.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "59",
pages = "31--64",
journal = "Personnel Psychology",
issn = "0031-5826",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional injustice

AU - Reb, Jochen

AU - Goldman, Barry M

AU - Kray, Laura J.

AU - Cropanzano, Russell

PY - 2006/3

Y1 - 2006/3

N2 - To alleviate the negative effects of workplace unfairness and resulting conflict, organizations can take remedial action to atone for a perceived injustice. We argue that the effectiveness of organizational remedies may depend on the match between type of injustice perceived and type of remedy offered. Specifically, based on the multiple needs model of justice (b17Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001), we expect procedural injustice to be particularly associated with preference for instrumental remedies that address the need for control. On the other hand, interactional injustice should be particularly associated with preference for punitive remedies that address the need for meaning. Confirming this hypothesis, a field study involving recently terminated employees found that procedural injustice was positively associated with preference for an instrumental remedy (monetary compensation) and interactional injustice was positively associated with preference for a punitive remedy (disciplinary action against those involved in the termination). Further supporting the hypothesis, a laboratory experiment manipulating the unfairness of performance feedback found greater preference for an instrumental remedy relative to a punitive remedy following a procedural injustice than following an interactional injustice. In discussing these results, we present a taxonomy of organizational remedies as they relate to the multiple needs model of justice. Practical implications are discussed.

AB - To alleviate the negative effects of workplace unfairness and resulting conflict, organizations can take remedial action to atone for a perceived injustice. We argue that the effectiveness of organizational remedies may depend on the match between type of injustice perceived and type of remedy offered. Specifically, based on the multiple needs model of justice (b17Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001), we expect procedural injustice to be particularly associated with preference for instrumental remedies that address the need for control. On the other hand, interactional injustice should be particularly associated with preference for punitive remedies that address the need for meaning. Confirming this hypothesis, a field study involving recently terminated employees found that procedural injustice was positively associated with preference for an instrumental remedy (monetary compensation) and interactional injustice was positively associated with preference for a punitive remedy (disciplinary action against those involved in the termination). Further supporting the hypothesis, a laboratory experiment manipulating the unfairness of performance feedback found greater preference for an instrumental remedy relative to a punitive remedy following a procedural injustice than following an interactional injustice. In discussing these results, we present a taxonomy of organizational remedies as they relate to the multiple needs model of justice. Practical implications are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645131848&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33645131848&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00773.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00773.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33645131848

VL - 59

SP - 31

EP - 64

JO - Personnel Psychology

JF - Personnel Psychology

SN - 0031-5826

IS - 1

ER -