Jerald Greenberg

Bio: Jerald Greenberg is an academic researcher from Max M. Fisher College of Business. The author has contributed to research in topics: Organizational justice & Justice (ethics). The author has an hindex of 62, co-authored 111 publications receiving 22755 citations. Previous affiliations of Jerald Greenberg include University of Florida & Ohio State University.

Studying organizational justice cross‐culturally: fundamental challenges

Abstract: Because justice is inherently norm‐based, understanding people's perceptions of fairness in organizations requires considering the prevailing cultural standards in which those organizations operate. Social scien‐tists study cross‐cultural differences in justice primarily to comprehend the connection between culture and fairness, providing insight into the different meanings of justice around the world, and to assess the generalizability of culture‐bound organizational justice phenomena. The present studies focus on assessing generalizability, but fall short of doing so optimally because they suffer from several conceptual and methodo‐logical problems that are endemic in this literature. Cross‐cultural research suggests that although concerns about justice may be universal, operationalization of justice standards is highly particularistic. Finally, I address Gallon's Problem as it pertains to justice—that is, how observed connections between culture and justice perceptions may be inflated spuriously because of inevitable cultural diffusion. In closing, I note that the present research appears to be aimed more squarely at theory‐development rather than theory‐testing, which is appropriate, given the current state of the literature.

Cultivating an Image of Justice: Looking Fair on the Job

Abstract: C ertainly, it would appear that being fair is a central interest among today's managers, concerned as they must be about providing "equal employment opportunities," adhering to "fair labor practices," and offering "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work." Just as judges promote fairness in the legal system, and referees and umpires ensure that sporting events are played fairly, managers are responsible for upholding both their company's and society's views of fairness by guaranteeing the fair treatment of employees.1 Despite this, however, it remains unclear what those responsible for the day-to-day management of organizations think constitutes fair behavior. Not surprisingly, just as legal scholars and philosophers cannot agree on what fairness really is in any absolute sense, social scientists have relied on studying justice as it is perceived to be that is, what is fair is in the eye of the beholder.2 In organizations, where the differing perspectives, interests, and goals of supervisors and subordinates might offer each access to different sources of information (as well as different biases on the same information), uncertainties about what is perceived to be fair are likely to arise.3 As a result, we may expect that seasoned managers trying to be fair may learn to focus on what others believe to be fair, thereby cultivating an impression of fairness rather than striving toward any abstract sense of morality. Indeed, when interviewing executives on the topic of organizational justice, I learned that in business organizations fairness was often a matter of impression-management. As one senior vice-president of a Fortune 500 firm confided in me, "What's fair is whatever the workers think is fair. My job is to convince them that what's good for the company is fair for them as individuals." Hearing this sentiment echoed by others, I began to suspect that fairness as viewed by corporate management was perhaps as much a matter of image as it was a matter of morality; that is, "looking fair" may be at least as important as actually "being fair." After all, even the best-intentioned, most "fair-minded" manager may fail to win the approval of subordinates who are not convinced of his or her fairness. Given this, we may ask the following two questions: (1) Are managers more concerned about looking fair or actually being fair? and (2) What do managers do to cultivate impressions of fairness? The Importance of Looking Fair: Survey Evidence

The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications

Abstract: ?The stakeholder theory has been advanced and justified in the management literature on the basis of its descriptive accuracy, instrumental power, and normative validity. These three aspects of the theory, although interrelated, are quite distinct; they involve different types of evidence and argument and have different implications. In this article, we examine these three aspects of the theory and critique and integrate important contributions to the literature related to each. We conclude that the three aspects of stakeholder theory are mutually supportive and that the normative base of the theory-which includes the modern theory of property rights-is fundamental. If the unity of the corporate body is real, then there is reality and not simply legal fiction in the proposition that the managers of the unit are fiduciaries for it and not merely for its individual members, that they are . . . trustees for an institution [with multiple constituents] rather than attorneys for the stockholders.

Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

Abstract: Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.

Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature.

Abstract: The authors reviewed more than 70 studies concerning employees' general belief that their work organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being (perceived organizational support; POS). A meta-analysis indicated that 3 major categories of beneficial treatment received by employees (i.e., fairness, supervisor support, and organizational rewards and favorable job conditions) were associated with POS. POS, in turn, was related to outcomes favorable to employees (e.g., job satisfaction, positive mood) and the organization (e.g., affective commitment, performance, and lessened withdrawal behavior). These relationships depended on processes assumed by organizational support theory: employees' belief that the organization's actions were discretionary, feeling of obligation to aid the organization, fulfillment of socioemotional needs, and performance-reward expectancies.

Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research

Abstract: The field of organizationa l justice continues to be marked by several important research questions, including the size of relationships among justice dimensions, the relative importance of different justice criteria, and the unique effects of justice dimensions on key outcomes. To address such questions, the authors conducted a meta-analytic review of 183 justice studies. The results suggest that although different justice dimensions are moderately to highly related, they contribute incremental variance explained in fairness perceptions. The results also illustrate the overall and unique relationships among distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice and several organizational outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, evaluation of authority, organizational citizenship behavior, withdrawal, performance). These findings are reviewed in terms of their implications for future research on organizationa l justice.