Table of Contents
Description
This measure, (Procedural and Distributive Fairness of Gainsharing) developed by Welbourne, Balkin, and Gomez-Mejia (1995), focuses on the issues relevant to gainsharing programs. Distributive justice covers the perceived fairness of the amount of the gainsharing bonuses. Pro cedural justice includes assessment of perceived consistency of the pro gram, decision structure, rules, procedures to limit the effects of bias, accu racy, adequate explanation of decisions, feedback, and consideration of employee viewpoints. One subscale of procedural justice describes fairness due to rules and procedures. A second subscale describes justice due to fair actions by the suggestion committee.
Reliability
Coefficient alpha for procedural justice based on rules and administration ranged from .71 to .90. Alpha for distributive justice ranged from .73 to .86. Coefficient alpha for justice based on actions of the suggestion committee was .60 (Welbourne, 1998; Welbourne et al., 1995).
Validity
Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the factors for procedural justice based on rules, justice based on fair processes of the suggestion committee, and distributive justice were empirically distinct from one another and from measures of monitoring the behaviors of other employees and willingness to act based on the behavior of others (Welbourne et al., 1995). Distributive jus tice correlated positively with both types of procedural justice and with employee willingness to act based on the behavior of other employees who are performing in the gainsharing program according to expectations. Pro cedural justice based on rules and administration and actions of the sugges tion committee were both correlated positively with employee monitoring and willingness to act based on the behavior of other employees in the gain sharing program (Welbourne, 1998; Welbourne et al., 1995). Both procedural and distributive fairness correlated positively with satisfaction with the gainsharing program, employee income level, pay satisfaction, and procedural fairness (Welbourne, 1998).
Source
Welbourne, T. M., Balkin, D. B., & Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1995). Gainsharing and mutual monitoring: A combined agency-organizational justice interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 881-899. © 1995 by Academy of Management. Items were taken from Table 1, pp. 892-893. Reproduced with permission of Academy of Management in the format text book via Copyright Clearance Center.
Items
Responses are obtained on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
Procedural justice based on rules and administration:
- The design of the gainsharing plan seems fair.
- The gainsharing formula is the same for all employees.
- The gainsharing plan is administered fairly.
- The rules used for sharing the gainsharing bonus with all employees are fair.
- The gainsharing plan developed by the company to reward employees for their performance is fair and impartial
- When determining whether a gainsharing bonus will be paid, the company uses accurate information about the department’s performance
- The performance level required to receive a gainsharing bonus is clear to me
Procedural justice based on suggestion committee actions:
- Suggestion committees provide an opportunity for me to express “my opinion”
- People who provide suggestions are treated fairly
- The suggestion committees and gainsharing program provide an opportunity for us to receive feedback and learn how well we are doing
Distributive justice:
- The size of our bonus is fair
- The bonus we receive is fair
- All in all, the bonus payment is what it ought to be
- Our bonus is fair compared to what others are getting
- The extent to which the bonus gives us the full amount we deserve is fair