Showing papers by "Jerald Greenberg published in 1987"

A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories

Abstract: A taxonomy is presented that categorizes theories of organizational justice with respect to two independent dimensions: a reactive-proactive dimension and a process-content dimension. Various theories within each of the four resulting categories are identified. The implications of the taxonomy are discussed with respect to clarifying theoretical interrelationships, tracking research trends, and identifying needed areas of research.

The College Sophomore as Guinea Pig: Setting the Record Straight

Abstract: The article presents a response to the 1986 article “‘The Science of the Sophomore’ Revisited: From Conjecture to Empiricism,” by M. E. Gordon, L.A. Slade, and N. Schmitt regarding using college students as subjects for organizational research. The author states that though the subject of the original paper is valid, it deserves further analysis, and offers two reasons why journal editors should consider studies that feature college student data. The author suggests that editors consider the relative usefulness of student and non-student samples and the interpretation of the between-subject differences.

Why procedural justice in organizations

Abstract: This article reviews the existing research and theory on procedural justice and considers how it may be applied to the study of organizational behavior. It begins by distinguishing between the concepts of distributive justice and procedural justice and noting the historical contexts within which they emerged. Existing conceptual contributions and the research inspired by them are reviewed. The few existing studies applying procedural justice notions to organizational contexts are summarized, and the contributions of the articles to the present issue of this journal are reviewed relative to these efforts. The article closes by discussing the dual benefits of studying procedural justice in organizations: the enhanced understanding of the concept of justice and the behavior of people in organizations.

Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals

Abstract: One-hundred-seventeen college students performed a task on which they received a negative, neutral, or positive performance evaluation. The evaluations were made by the experimenter who (i) kept a diary documenting subjects' performance, (ii) observed their performance but did not keep a diary, or (iii) made the evaluation on no apparent basis (control). It was found that both the evaluation procedure and the evaluation outcome itself were perceived as being fairer when diaries were used as the basis for making evaluations relative to either subjects in the observation procedure group or the control group. The practical implications of these findings for performance appraisals are considered along with the implications for conceptual work on procedural justice.

Controversial issues in social research methods

Abstract: It is often said that one of the key determinants of a book's wmth is the extent to which it fulfills the reader's expectations. As such, we welcome this oppor tunity to help formulate the expectations of our readers, to express our view of what this book is and what it is not. We believe that fully appreciating this volume requires understanding its mission and how it differs from that of other books on research methodology. We have not prepared a primer on research techniques. We offer no "how to" guides for researchers-nothing on how to conduct interviews, how to design studies, or how to analyze data. We also have not prepared a partisan platform documenting "our way" of thinking about research. Very few, if any, attempts at proselytizing may be found in these pages. What we have done, we believe, is to bring together a number of recurring controversial issues about social psychological research-issues that have divided profes sionals, puzzled students, and filled the pages of our journals. Few scholars have missed reports arguing the sides of various methodological contro versies, such as those surrounding the merits or shortcomings of field research in comparison to laboratory research, the use of role playing as an alternative for studies involving deception, or the value of informed consent procedures, to name only a few examples. Our aim in preparing this volume has been to organize and summarize the salient aspects of these and other impmtant controversial issues."