1998Group & Organization ManagementRequires access

Untangling Procedural and Distributive Justice

Theresa M. Welbourne

Open publisher page 40 citations

Abstract

Prior studies on fairness have investigated the conditions under which either procedural or distributive justice is more important to employees. One view holds that procedural justice is more important when the outcome is group-based, and distributive justice is more important when an outcome is individual-based. The second view is that distributive justice is more important when an outcome is high or positive, and procedural justice is more important when an outcome is low or negative. This study examined of the effects of procedural and distributive justice on satisfaction with gainsharing, which involves a group-based outcome. The study was conducted with two firm, one representing a high payout conditon and one a low-and zero-bonus payment. The results suggest that level of payout is important in the determination. Implication. Implications for research had for corporate we gainsharing are discussed.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Prior studies on fairness have investigated the conditions under which either procedural or distributive justice is more important to employees. One view holds that procedural justice is more important when the outcome is group-based, and distributive justice is more important when an outcome is individual-based. The second view is that distributive justice is more important when an outcome is high or positive, and procedural justice is more important when an outcome is low or negative. This study examined of the effects of procedural and distributive justice on satisfaction with gainsharing, which involves a group-based outcome. The study was conducted with two firm, one representing a high payout conditon and one a low-and zero-bonus payment. The results suggest that level of payout is important in the determination. Implication. Implications for research had for corporate we gainsharing are discussed.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 40 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Prior studies on fairness have investigated the conditions under which either procedural or distributive justice is more important to employees. One view holds that procedural justice is more important when the outcome is group-based, and distributive justice is more important when an outcome is individual-based. The second view is that distributive justice is more important when an outcome is high or positive, and procedural justice is more important when an outcome is low or negative. This study examined of the effects of procedural and distributive justice on satisfaction with gainsharing, which involves a group-based outcome. The study was conducted with two firm, one representing a high payout conditon and one a low-and zero-bonus payment. The results suggest that level of payout is important in the determination. Implication. Implications for research had for corporate we gainsharing are discussed.

Key concepts: Distributive justice, Procedural justice, Outcome (game theory), Distributive property, Social psychology, Psychology, Payment, Economic Justice

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Untangling Procedural and Distributive Justice — Research Paper | ScholarLens