Psych992 Organizational Justice

Dr. Ann Marie Ryan

Office: 333 Psychology Building

Phone: 517-353-8855

Email:

Office hours: by appointment

Course website is on D2L

Meets: Wed 8-10:50, Room 325 Psychology

Objectives:

  • To understand the basic concepts and major theoretical models in the organizational justice literature
  • To understand the role of justice in behavioral and attitudinal outcomes for individuals in the workplace
  • To critically evaluate existing organizational justice research in order to discuss needed research directions
  • To evaluate the applicability of justice concepts to decision-making processes in organizations and to their redesign.
  • To evaluate the effectiveness of system and individual means of addressing unfairness

Grading Criteria:

Research proposal OR applied project65%

Participation35%

Text: Cropanzano, R. S. & Ambrose, M.L. (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Note that while we won’t read every single chapter in this handbook, we will be reading a fair portion of it, so I have listed it as required on the bookstore website. If you wish to share a copy with others, that is fine with me.

All other readings and assignments are available on D2L

Academic Honesty:Article 2.3.3 of the Academic Freedom Report states: “The student shares with the faculty the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of scholarship, grades, and professional standards.” In addition, the psychology department adheres to the policies on academic honesty specified in General Student Regulation 1.0, Protection of Scholarship and Grades; the all-University Policy on Integrity of Scholarship and Grades; and Ordinance 17.00, Examinations. (See Spartan Life: Student Handbook and Resource Guide and/or the MSU Web site

Therefore, you are expected to complete all course assignments without assistance from any source. You are expected to develop original work for this course; therefore, you may not submit course work you completed for another course to satisfy the requirements for this course. Students who violate MSU rules may receive a penalty grade, including but not limited to a failing grade on the assignment or in the course. Specific to this course, plagiarism of an assignment results in a zero for that assignment.

Instructor Availability:

While I do have set office hours, I am available to meet with students at other times by appointment. However, my schedule is a full one and so dropping by may not be the best strategy – please email to schedule appointments. I do check email frequently.

Classroom Rules of Conduct

Cell phones must be turned offbefore class starts and put awayunless you have been explicitly told to access the internet. The course is structured to encourage discussion and interaction – please treat other members of the class with courtesy and respect. If you are disruptive (e.g., talking when others have the floor, making inappropriate remarks, interfering with others’ learning), you will be asked to leave the class. Texting, emailing, game playing, and web surfing during class are counterproductive to learning, lessen your capacity to engage with those around you, and can be rude. Leave the outside world outside of class and be fully present. I reserve the right to confiscate for the duration of class any device that I feel is affecting my ability to teach effectively regardless of whether you think it is not distracting you. If for some reason you must arrive late or leave early (e.g., illness, car trouble), please take a seat near the door and minimize disruption of others with your arrival/departure. Given our early start, feel free to bring coffee/breakfast.

Online and in-person courtesy expectations

As a seminar, this is a discussion based class. While I encourage you to be yourself in your expressions, I also expect courtesy and respect for others (online and in person). Please refrain from language that others might find offensive. There are topics we will discuss where individuals may have very different opinions and views – please express your dissenting viewpoint diplomatically.

Recording

As members of a learning community, students are expected to respect the intellectual property of course instructors. All course materials presented to students are subject to the following conditions of use:

  1. Students may record lectures/classroom activities and use the recordings for their own course-related purposes.
  2. Students may share the recordings for others enrolled in this specific course section. Sharing is limited to using the recordings only for course-related purposes
  3. Students may not post the recordings or any other course materials online or distribute them to anyone not enrolled in this section of the class without the advance written permission of the course instructor and, if applicable, any students whose voice or image is included in the recordings. That means you cannot post a photo or video or other recording of anyone in the class to any social media site (e.g., Instagram, Facebook, Twitter) without their written consent. Violation of this policy may result in a grade penalty up to a 0.0 in the course.
  4. Any student violating the conditions described above may face academic disciplinary sanctions.

Accommodations

If you have a disability that will require accommodations, please see me the first week of class. If you will miss class for a religious observance, let me know in advance.

Grief Absence Policy

Students seeking a grief absence should be directed to the Grief Absence Request Form found on the RO home page ( under 'Student Services - Grief Absence Request Form' OR to StuInfo ( under 'Academics - Enrollment Information and Services - Grief Absence Request Form.'

Students will be asked to supply information on the nature of the loss, the date they became aware, and the expected period of absence. Once completed, the information is routed to the Assoc. Dean of the student's college and must be received prior to the student leaving campus. The student will receive a confidential message confirming the submission and reminding them that supporting documentation must be provided and who to send it to. In addition, the appropriate dean's office will be notified that a request has been submitted. Once the appropriate administrator has either approved or denied the request, the student will again receive a confidential message notifying them of the decision of the dean's office. If approved, instructors will be notified by the appropriate dean's office of the period of absence. Instructors are expected to arrange for students to make up the missed work.

Emergency Procedures

If an emergency should occur that would require the cancellation of class, I will send an email via D2L. While an emergency occurring during class is unlikely, please take time the first day to think through your emergency plans for such events (e.g., know at least two exits from the building).

YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF ELECTING TO DO THE PROJECT OR THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL. BOTH ARE DESCRIBED HERE, BUT YOU WOULD DO ONE OR THE OTHER.

Justice Project

A useful way of understanding course concepts is attempting to apply them to organizational problems. In this project, you will be doing an in-depth examination of a particular practice or problem in the context of an organization of your choosing. This will force you to think about the applicability of various theoretical propositions, the meaning of various constructs, and ways in which one can enact positive change with regard to justice perceptions.

For this project, you will need to gain the cooperation of a particular organization or unit willing to answer your questions candidly, allow your observations, and interested in hearing your suggestions for change or improvement. Below is a sample “script” you might use to approach an organization.

The project is broken down into phases to make the completion more manageable and to provide me with a chance to give you feedback and suggestions as you proceed:

  • Selection of organization and issue/practice of focus (Sept 20)
  • Generation of data gathering plan (October 11)
  • What you will be attempting to answer (your objectives, your questions)
  • What you will be specifically asking the members of the organization
  • How will you get information (interviews, observations, examining policy statements, etc..
  • Conduct data gathering
  • Draft Summary report -- what you uncovered, how it does/doesn’t connect to justice literature, recommendations (November 22)
  • Presentation to class (Dec 6)
  • Final report due (Dec 11)

Grading criteria:

Statement of problem and context description (10 points)

Integration of relevant literature (15 points)

Quality of data gathering (25 points)

Thoroughness and relevance of recommendations (30 points)

Quality of writing (10 points)

Demonstrated understanding of organizational justice concepts (10 points)

Example of potential topics/issues

Pay systems

Selection systems

Promotion decision making

Resource allocation decisions (e.g., space, shift assignments)

Handling complaints regarding service or products

Grievance processes

Performance evaluation systems

Recognition/award decisions

Training of supervisors/managers

Script

  • Provide information on your background and field of expertise
  • Note that you are seeking a site for doing a class project – where you can gather some information on a specific organizational practice or procedure in exchange for providing recommendations for improvement
  • Give suggestions of specific types of practices/procedures you would be interested in (willing to) examine
  • The focus of the project is on fairness perceptions of organizational decision making and resource allocation processes – I would be examining your process and examining which features contribute to positive perceptions of the fairness of the process and which aspects might be improved to enhance perceptions of fairness.
  • Specifically I would do things like:
  • interview managers and staff regarding the process, what it is and how they feel about it
  • if a large enough group, I could conduct an anonymous survey to assess perceptions of the procedure and get suggestions for improvement
  • compare your procedure to what are considered best practices
  • make specific suggestions for redesign and improvements
  • if desired, provide a presentation to senior staff regarding the project and my findings.

Research Proposal

Improving your research design and writing skills is an important component of graduate education. Developing a detailed research proposal provides you with the opportunity to work on those skills while demonstrating understanding of course content.

The specific focus of the proposal is up to you; however, it must be related to organizational justice in some fashion, and it must be a proposal of a specific research study designed to address specific questions or hypotheses. That is, it cannot be solely a literature review or model development. Proposals should be fully detailed in terms of methods (i.e., append specific measures you would use or samples of items for a measure you would develop, describe the specific data analytic approach you will take). Length should be between 15-20 pages and will likely vary depending upon the complexity of the question(s) you address as well as the state of the literature specific to your question(s).

I would strongly urge you to take the time to really develop an idea you might pursue. In both of the previous two times I have taught this class, students have taken a class proposal, conducted research, and got the work published. This should be your goal as well.

  • Selection of topic (Sept 20)
  • Detailed outline of intro/major hypotheses/questions/model (October 11)
  • Draft of paper (November 22)
  • Presentation to class (Dec 6)
  • Final paper due (Dec 11)

Grading criteria:

Statement of problem and contribution of the study (10 points)

Adequacy of literature review (15 points)

Conceptual development of rationale for hypotheses (25 points)

Clarity and appropriateness of the methods (30 points)

Quality of writing (10 points)

Demonstrated understanding of organizational justice concepts (10 points)

Tentative course schedule

9/6Overview of organizational justice theory: foundational concepts

9/13Organizational justice theory continued: expansions, alternatives

9/20Measurement of justice perceptions

9/27Foci, dynamics, and unexpected effects

10/4Levels and justice (climate, teams, culture)

10/11Third parties, trickles and spirals

10/18Deeper dive: distributive and procedural justice and emerging topics

10/25 Deeper dive: interactional justice related and emerging topics

11/1 Individual differences (in perceptions, in coping, in motivation)

11/8 Applications: negotiation, mediation, layoffs, mergers, org change

11/15 Applications: selection, performance appraisal, pay

11/22 Addressing unfairness: individuals

11/29 Addressing unfairness: systems

12/6 Present/discuss papers

Finals time is Monday, Dec 11 2017 7:45am - 9:45am in 325 Psychology Bldg; this will be when your final version of paper/project is due. This will also be a “make up” time should we have to cancel any classes during the term, so please keep it open in case.

Background:

If you are totally unfamiliar with the concept of organizational justice, an easy, quick read overview paper is Cropanzano, R. Bowen, DE, Gilliland WS 2007 The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 301-48. (on D2L in syllabus tab).

Readings:

9/6Overview of organizational justice theory: foundational concepts

Colquitt, J. A., & Zipay, K. P. (2015). Justice, fairness, and employee reactions.Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,2, 75-99.

Oxford Handbook, Chapter 2 Tornblom & Kazemi, Distributive justice: revisiting past statements and reflecting on future prospects, p15-50

Oxford Handbook, Chapter 3, Bobocel & Gosse, Procedural justice: a historical review and critical analysis. P 51-87

Scott, BA, Garza, AS, Conlon, DE & You Jin, K (2014). Why do managers act fairly in the first place? A daily investigation of “hot” and “cold” motives and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1571-1591

9/13Organizational justice theory: different theoretical frames

Oxford Handbook, ch 15, Folger & Glerum, Justice and deonance: “you ought to be fair” p 331-350.

Oxford Handbook, ch 16, Blader & Tyler, Relational models of procedural justice, p351-369.

Oxford Handbook, ch 17, Proudfoot & Lind, Fairness Heuristic Theory, the Uncertainty Management Model and Fairness at Work. p 371-385

Oxford Handbook, Ch 19, Van den Bos, Humans making sense of alarming conditions: psychological insight into the fair process effect, p 403-417

Barclay, L. J., Bashshur, M. R., & Fortin, M. (2017). Motivated cognition and fairness: Insights, integration, and creating a path forward.Journal of Applied Psychology,102(6), 867-889.

9/20Measurement Issues

Oxford Handbook, Ch 5, Ambrose, Wo & Griffith , Overall Justice: Past, Present, and Future. P 109-135

Oxford Handbook, Ch 7, Lavelle, Rupp, Manegold & Thornton, Multifoci justice and target similarity: emerging research and extensions. P165-186.

Oxford Handbook, Ch 8, Colquitt & Rodell, Measuring justice and fairness, p 187-202.

Colquitt, JA, Wang, DM, Rodell, JB & Halverson-Gonepola, MDK (2015). Adding the “in” to justice: a qualitative and quantitative investigation of the differential effects of justice rule adherence and violation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 278-297.

Rupp, DE., Shapiro DL, Folger, R., Skarlicki, DP & Shao, R. (2017). A Critical Analysis of the Conceptualization and Measurement of Organizational Justice: Is It Time for Reassessment?Academy of Management Annals 2017,11(2)919-959;

TOPIC FOR PROJECT/PAPER DUE (paragraph in D2L dropbox)

9/27Foci, dynamics, and less expected outcomes

Skarlicki, Daniel P.; van Jaarsveld, Danielle D.; Shao, Ruodan; Song, Young Ho; Wang, Mo (2016). Extending the multifoci perspective: The role of supervisor justice and moral identity in the relationship between customer justice and customer-directed sabotage.Journal of Applied Psychology. 108-121.

Hausknecht, John P.; Sturman, Michael C.; Roberson, Quinetta M. (2012). Justice as a dynamic construct: Effects of individual trajectories on distal work outcomes.Journal of Applied Psychology, 872-880.

Johnson, Russell E.; Lanaj, Klodiana; Barnes, Christopher M. (2014). The good and bad of being fair: Effects of procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources.Journal of Applied Psychology. 635-650.

Matta, FK, Scott, BA, Colquitt, JA, Koopman, J. & Passantino, L. (2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 743-770

Axt, J., & Oishi, S. (2016). When unfair treatment helps performance. Motivation and Emotion, doi:

Rodell, J. B., Colquitt, J. A., & Baer, M. D. (2017). Is adhering to justice rules enough? the role of charismatic qualities in perceptions of supervisors’ overall fairness.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,140, 14-28.

10/4Levels and justice: climate, teams, culture

Oxford Handbook, Ch 6, Li, Cropanzano & Molina, Fairness at the Unit Level: Justice climate, justice climate strength and peer justice. P 137-164

Oxford Handbook, Ch 12, James, Culture and Organizational Justice: State of the literature and suggestions for future directions, p273-290.

Stoverink, Adam C.; Umphress, Elizabeth E.; Gardner, Richard G.; Miner, Kathi N. (2014). Misery loves company: Team dissonance and the influence of supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate on team cohesiveness.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1059-1073.

Siegel Christian, Jessica; Christian, Michael S.; Garza, Adela S.; Ellis, Aleksander P. J. (2012). Examining retaliatory responses to justice violations and recovery attempts in teams.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1218-1232

Whitman, Daniel S.; Caleo, Suzette; Carpenter, Nichelle C.; Horner, Margaret T.; Bernerth, Jeremy B (2012). Fairness at the collective level: A meta-analytic examination of the consequences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate.Journal of Applied Psychology, 776-791.

Liu, D., Hernandez, M., & Wang, L. (2014). The role of leadership and trust in creating structural patterns of team procedural justice: A social network investigation.Personnel Psychology,67(4), 801-845.

10/11Third parties, trickles and spirals

Oxford Handbook, Ch 10, Skarlicki, O’Reilly & Kulik, The third-party perspective of (in)justice. p235-255

O’Reilly, J., Aquino, K. & Skarlicki, D. (2016). The lives of others: third parties’ responses to others’ injustice. Journal of Applied psychology, 101, 171-189.

Dunford, B. B., Jackson, C. L., Boss, A. D., Tay, L., & Boss, R. W. (2015). Be fair, your employees are watching: A relational response model of external third‐party justice.Personnel Psychology,68(2), 319-352.

Wo, D. X. H., Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2015). What drives trickle-down effects? A test of multiple mediation processes.Academy of Management Journal,58(6), 1848-1868.

Fulmer, CA & Ostroff, C (2017). Trust in direct leaders and top leaders: A trickle-up model.Journal of Applied Psychology, 648-657.

OUTLINE OR PLAN DUE (DROPBOX)

10/18: Deeper dive on DJ and PJ related topics PLUS emerging issues

Gilliland, S.W. & Anderson, J.S. (2011). Perceptions of greed: a distributive injustice model. Emerging Perspectives on Organizational Justice and Ethics, p137-166 Information Age Publishing.