Of all the issues that employees consider in organizational life, justice and fairness are among the most salient. Justice reflects the perceived adherence to rules that represent appropriateness in decision contexts (e.g., equity, consistency, respect, truthfulness). Fairness reflects a more global perception of appropriateness that lies downstream of justice. Our review integrates justice theories (fairness heuristic theory, the relational model, the group engagement model, fairness theory, deonance theory, uncertainty management theory) and broader theories (social exchange theory, affective events theory) to examine three questions: () Why do employees think about justice issues in the first place? () how do employees form fairness perceptions? and () how do employees react to those perceptions? We close by describing how justice and fairness can be managed in organizations, especially given new technological trends in how people work.

Associated Article

There are media items related to this article:
Putting It all Together: Integrating Justice Theories

Associated Article

There are media items related to this article:
How Exactly Should You Measure Justice?

Associated Article

There are media items related to this article:
I’m Glad You Asked: Answering Critical Justice Questions

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Adams JS. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 2 Berkowitz L. 267–99 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  2. Alder GS, Ambrose ML. 2005. An examination of the effect of computerized performance monitoring feedback on monitoring fairness, performance, and satisfaction. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 97:161–77 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ambrose ML, Schminke M. 2009. The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: a test of mediation. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:491–500 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aquino K, Tripp TM, Bies RJ. 2006. Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:653–68 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bailey DE, Kurland NB. 2002. A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. J. Organ. Behav. 23:383–400 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barsky A, Kaplan SA, Beal DJ. 2011. Just feelings? The role of affect in the formation of organizational fairness judgments. J. Manag. 37:248–79 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bauer TN, Truxillo DM, Sanchez RJ, Craig JM, Ferrara P, Campion MA. 2001. Applicant reactions to selection: development of the selection procedural justice scale (SPJS). Pers. Psychol. 54:387–419 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernerth JB, Armenakis AA, Feild HS, Giles WF, Walker HJ. 2007. Leader–member social exchange (LMSX): development and validation of a scale. J. Organ. Behav. 28:979–1003 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bies RJ. 1987. The predicament of injustice: the management of moral outrage. Res. Organ. Behav. 9:289–319 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bies RJ, Moag JF. 1986. Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiations in Organizations Vol. 1 Lewicki RJ, Sheppard BH, Bazerman MH. 43–55 Greenwich, CT: JAI [Google Scholar]
  11. Bies RJ, Tripp TM. 2002. “Hot flashes, open wounds”: injustice and the tyranny of its emotions. Emerging Perspectives on Managing Organizational Justice Gilliland SW, Steiner DD, Skarlicki DP. 203–21 Greenwich, CT:: Inf. Age [Google Scholar]
  12. Blader SL, Tyler TR. 2009. Testing and extending the group engagement model: linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:445–64 [Google Scholar]
  13. Blau P. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life New York: Wiley
  14. Brockner J, Spreitzer G, Mishra A, Hochwater W, Pepper L, Weinberg J. 2004. Perceived job control as an antidote to the negative effects of layoffs on survivors’ organizational commitment and job performance. Adm. Sci. Q. 49:76–100 [Google Scholar]
  15. Colquitt JA. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:386–400 [Google Scholar]
  16. Colquitt JA, Baer MD, Long DM, Halvorsen-Ganepola MDK. 2014. Scale indicators of social exchange relationships: a comparison of relative content validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:599–618 [Google Scholar]
  17. Colquitt JA, Chertkoff JM. 2002. Explaining injustice: the interactive effect of explanation and outcome on fairness perceptions and task motivation. J. Manag. 28:591–610 [Google Scholar]
  18. Colquitt JA, LePine JA, Piccolo RF, Zapata CP, Rich BL. 2012. Explaining the justice–performance relationship: trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer?. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:1–15 [Google Scholar]
  19. Colquitt JA, Rodell JB. 2015. Measuring justice and fairness. The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace Cropanzano R, Ambrose. New York ML. Oxford Univ. Press In press [Google Scholar]
  20. Colquitt JA, Scott BA, Judge TA, Shaw JC. 2006. Justice and personality: using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 100:110–27 [Google Scholar]
  21. Colquitt JA, Scott BA, Rodell JB, Long DM, Zapata CP et al. 2013. Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:199–236 [Google Scholar]
  22. Colquitt JA, Shaw JC. 2005. How should organizational justice be measured?. Handbook of Organizational Justice Greenberg J, Colquitt JA. 113–52 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  23. Cropanzano R, Byrne ZS. 2000. Workplace justice and the dilemma of organizational citizenship. Collective Problems in Modern Society: Dilemmas and Solutions Van Vugt M, Tyler TR, Biel A. 142–61 London: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  24. Cropanzano R, Byrne ZS, Bobocel DR, Rupp DE. 2001. Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. J. Vocat. Behav. 58:164–209 [Google Scholar]
  25. Desai SD, Sondak H, Diekmann KA. 2011. When fairness neither satisfies nor motivates: the role of risk aversion and uncertainty reduction in attenuating and reversing the fair process effect. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 116:32–45 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dulebohn JH, Martocchio JJ. 1998. Employee perceptions of the fairness of work group incentive pay plans. J. Manag. 24:469–88 [Google Scholar]
  27. Econ. Intell. Unit 2014. What’s next: future global trends affecting your organization—evolution of work and the worker. Rep., SHRM Found., Alexandria, VA
  28. Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison S, Sowa D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol 71:500–7 [Google Scholar]
  29. Eisenberger R, Karagonlar G, Stinglhamber F, Neves P, Becker TE et al. 2010. Leader–member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:1085–103 [Google Scholar]
  30. Folger R. 2001. Fairness as deonance. Theoretical and Cultural Perspectives on Organizational Justice Gilliland SW, Steiner DD, Skarlicki DP. 3–34 Greenwich, CT: Inf. Age [Google Scholar]
  31. Folger R. 2012. Deonance: behavioral ethics and moral obligation. Behavioral Business Ethics: Shaping an Emerging Field DeCremer D, Tenbrunsel A. 123–42 New York: Taylor & Francis [Google Scholar]
  32. Folger R, Cropanzano R. 2001. Fairness theory: justice as accountability. Advances in Organizational Justice Greenberg J, Cropanzano R. 89–118 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  33. Folger R, Cropanzano R, Goldman B. 2005. What is the relationship between justice and morality?. Handbook of Organizational Justice Greenberg J, Colquitt JA. 215–45 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  34. Folger R, Greenberg J. 1985. Procedural justice: an interpretive analysis of personnel systems. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 3:141–83 [Google Scholar]
  35. Folger R, Martin C. 1986. Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: distributive and procedural justice effects. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22:531–46 [Google Scholar]
  36. Folger R, Rosenfield D, Robinson T. 1983. Relative deprivation and procedural justifications. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 45:268–73 [Google Scholar]
  37. Fox S, Spector PE, Miles D. 2001. Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. J. Vocat. Behav. 59:291–309 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gajendran RS, Harrison DA. 2007. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1524–41 [Google Scholar]
  39. George JM. 1991. State or trait: effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 76:299–307 [Google Scholar]
  40. Gilliland SW, Groth M, Baker RC IV, Dew AF, Polly LM, Langdon JC. 2001. Improving applicants’ reactions to rejection letters: an application of fairness theory. Pers. Psychol. 54:669–703 [Google Scholar]
  41. Golden TD, Fromen A. 2011. Does it matter where your manager works? Comparing managerial work mode (traditional, telework, virtual) across subordinate work experiences and outcomes. Hum. Relat. 64:1451–75 [Google Scholar]
  42. Goldman BM. 2003. The application of referent cognitions theory to legal-claiming by terminated workers: the role of organizational justice and anger. J. Manag. 29:705–28 [Google Scholar]
  43. Greenberg J. 1986. Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair?. Research on Negotiations in Organizations Greenberg JS, Cropanzano R. 25–41 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  44. Greenberg J. 1993. The social side of fairness: interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management Cropanzano R. 79–103 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  45. Horvath M, Andrews SB. 2007. The role of fairness perceptions and accountability attributions in predicting reactions to organizational events. J. Psychol. 141:203–22 [Google Scholar]
  46. Jones DA, Martens ML. 2009. The mediating role of overall fairness and the moderating role of trust certainty in justice-criteria relationships: the formation and use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. J. Organ. Behav. 30:1025–51 [Google Scholar]
  47. Judge TA, Scott BA, Ilies R. 2006. Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a multilevel model. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:126–38 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kant I. 1795. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay New York: Macmillan
  49. Karriker JH, Williams ML. 2009. Organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: a mediated multifoci model. J. Manag. 35:112–35 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kim TY, Leung K. 2007. Forming and reacting to overall fairness: a cross-cultural comparison. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 104:83–95 [Google Scholar]
  51. Konovsky MA, Pugh SD. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Acad. Manag. J. 37:656–69 [Google Scholar]
  52. Krehbiel PJ, Cropanzano R. 2000. Procedural justice, outcome favorability, and emotion. Soc. Justice Res. 13:339–60 [Google Scholar]
  53. Lavelle JJ, Brockner J, Konovsky MA, Price KH, Henley AB et al. 2009. Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: a multifoci analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 30:337–57 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lazarus RS. 1991. Emotions and Adaptation New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  55. Lee K, Allen NJ. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the role of affect and cognition. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:131–42 [Google Scholar]
  56. Leventhal GS. 1976. The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 9 Berkowitz L, Walster W. 91–131 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  57. Leventhal GS. 1980. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research Gergen K, Greenberg M, Willis R. 27–55 New York: Plenum [Google Scholar]
  58. Leventhal GS, Karuza J, Fry W. 1980. Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation preferences. Justice and Social Interaction: Experimental and Theoretical Contributions from Psychological Research Mikula G. 167–218 New York: Springer-Verlag [Google Scholar]
  59. Liao H, Rupp DE. 2005. The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: a cross-level multifoci framework. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:242–56 [Google Scholar]
  60. Lim VK. 2002. The IT way of loafing on the job: cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice. J. Organ. Behav. 23:675–94 [Google Scholar]
  61. Lind EA. 2001a. Fairness heuristic theory: justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. Advances in Organizational Justice Greenberg J, Cropanzano R. 56–88 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  62. Lind EA. 2001b. Thinking critically about justice judgments. J. Vocat. Behav. 58:220–26 [Google Scholar]
  63. Lind EA, Tyler TR. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice New York: Plenum
  64. Lind EA, Van den Bos K. 2002. When fairness works: toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Res. Organ. Behav. 24:181–223 [Google Scholar]
  65. Mainiero LA, Jones KJ. 2013. Workplace romance 2.0: developing a communication ethics model to address potential sexual harassment from inappropriate social media contacts between coworkers. J. Bus. Ethics 114:367–79 [Google Scholar]
  66. Masterson SS, Lewis K, Goldman BM, Taylor MS. 2000. Integrating justice and social exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Acad. Manag. J. 43:738–48 [Google Scholar]
  67. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev 20:709–34 [Google Scholar]
  68. McAllister DJ. 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad. Manag. J 38:24–59 [Google Scholar]
  69. Meyer JP, Allen NJ, Smith CA. 1993. Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. J. Appl. Psychol 78:538–51 [Google Scholar]
  70. Moorman RH, Blakely GL, Niehoff BP. 1998. Does organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?. Acad. Manag. J. 41:35157 [Google Scholar]
  71. Mowday RT, Porter LW, Steers RM. 1982. Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover New York: Academic
  72. Naumann SE, Bennett N. 2000. A case for procedural justice climate: development and test of a multilevel model. Acad. Manag. J. 43:881–89 [Google Scholar]
  73. Nicklin JM, Greenbaum R, McNall LA, Folger R, Williams KJ. 2011. The importance of contextual variables when judging fairness: an examination of counterfactual thoughts and fairness theory. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 114:127–41 [Google Scholar]
  74. Organ DW. 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Res. Organ. Behav 12:43–72 [Google Scholar]
  75. Quinones MA. 1995. Pretraining context effects: training assignment as feedback. J. Appl. Psychol. 80:226–38 [Google Scholar]
  76. Rawls J. 1971. A Theory of Justice Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  77. Robinson SL, Rousseau DM. 1994. Violating the psychological contract: not the exception but the norm. J. Organ. Behav 15:245–59 [Google Scholar]
  78. Rupp DE, Cropanzano R. 2002. The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 89:925–46 [Google Scholar]
  79. Rupp DE, Shao R, Jones KS, Liao H. 2014. The utility of a multifoci approach to the study of organizational justice: a meta-analytic investigation into the consideration of normative rules, moral accountability, bandwidth-fidelity, and social exchange. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 123:159–85 [Google Scholar]
  80. Rupp DE, Spencer S. 2006. When customers lash out: the effects of customer interactional injustice on emotional labor and the mediating role of discrete emotions. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:971–78 [Google Scholar]
  81. Sánchez Abril P, Levin A, Del Riego A. 2012. Blurred boundaries: social media privacy and the twenty-first-century employee. Am. Bus. Law. J. 49:63–124 [Google Scholar]
  82. Schein EH. 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
  83. Scholl RW, Cooper EA, McKenna JF. 1987. Referent selection in determining equity perceptions: differential effects on behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. Pers. Psychol. 40:113–24 [Google Scholar]
  84. Scott BA, Colquitt JA, Zapata-Phelan CP. 2007. Justice as a dependent variable: subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1597–609 [Google Scholar]
  85. Skarlicki DP, Rupp DE. 2010. Dual processing and organizational justice: the role of rational versus experiential processing in third-party reactions to workplace mistreatment. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:944–52 [Google Scholar]
  86. Smith HJ, Tyler TR, Huo YJ, Ortiz DJ, Lind EA. 1998. The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 34:470–93 [Google Scholar]
  87. Tekleab AG, Takeuchi R, Taylor MS. 2005. Extending the chain of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: the role of contract violations. Acad. Manag. J. 48:146–57 [Google Scholar]
  88. Thatcher S, Bagger J. 2011. Working in pajamas: telecommuting, unfairness sources, and unfairness perceptions. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 4:248–76 [Google Scholar]
  89. Thibaut J, Walker L. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  90. Tripp TM, Bies RJ, Aquino K. 2007. A vigilante model of justice: revenge, reconciliation, forgiveness, and avoidance. Soc. Justice Res. 20:10–34 [Google Scholar]
  91. Tyler TR, Blader SL. 2003. The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 7:349–61 [Google Scholar]
  92. Tyler TR, Degoey P, Smith H. 1996. Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: a test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70:913–30 [Google Scholar]
  93. Tyler TR, Lind EA. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 25 Zanna MP. 115–91 San Diego, CA: Academic [Google Scholar]
  94. Umphress EE, Simmons AL, Folger R, Ren R, Bobocel R. 2013. Observer reactions to interpersonal injustice: the roles of perpetrator intent and victim perception. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 34:327–49 [Google Scholar]
  95. Van den Bos K. 2001a. Fairness heuristic theory: assessing the information to which people are reacting has a pivotal role in understanding organizational justice. Theoretical and Cultural Perspectives on Organizational Justice Gilliland S, Steiner D, Skarlicki D. 63–84 Greenwich, CT: Inf. Age [Google Scholar]
  96. Van den Bos K. 2001b. Uncertainty management: the influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 80:931–41 [Google Scholar]
  97. Van den Bos K. 2003. On the subjective quality of social justice: the role of affect as information in the psychology of justice judgments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85:482–98 [Google Scholar]
  98. Van den Bos K, Lind EA. 2002. Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 34 Zanna MP. 1–60 San Diego, CA: Academic [Google Scholar]
  99. Van den Bos K, Lind EA, Vermunt R, Wilke HAM. 1997a. How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72:95–104 [Google Scholar]
  100. Van den Bos K, Miedema J. 2000. Toward understanding why fairness matters: the influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 79:355–66 [Google Scholar]
  101. Van den Bos K, Vermunt R, Wilke HAM. 1997b. Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol 72:95–104 [Google Scholar]
  102. Van den Bos K, Wilke HAM, Lind EA. 1998. When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 75:1449–58 [Google Scholar]
  103. Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. 1996. Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Res. Organ. Behav. 18:1–74 [Google Scholar]
  104. Weiss HM, Suckow K, Cropanzano R. 1999. Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. J. Appl. Psychol. 84:786–94 [Google Scholar]
  105. Yang J, Diefendorff JM. 2009. The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behaviors with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: a diary study in Hong Kong. Pers. Psychol. 62:259–95 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

    What We Learned from Our Justice Review: Takeaways from a Veteran and a Newcomer to the Justice Literature

    How Exactly Should You Measure Justice?

    Putting It all Together: Integrating Justice Theories

    I’m Glad You Asked: Answering Critical Justice Questions

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error