Distributive Justice Index

Description

This measure (Distributive Justice Index) was developed by Price and Mueller (1986). It focuses on assessment of the degree to which rewards received by employees are per­ceived to be related to performance inputs. Performance inputs from an employee include effort, experience, and education. Distributive justice is judged high in an organization when effort, experience, good work, and dealing with stresses and strains of a job are rewarded and their absence pun­ ished. The original items were modified by Mansour-Cole and Scott (1998) to assess the degree of perceived fairness in an employee’s work situation compared with co-workers.

Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the way that rewards are distributed in a society. It is a complex concept that has been studied by philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists for centuries.

There are many different ways to measure distributive justice. One common approach is to use a survey instrument that asks people to rate their agreement with statements about the fairness of the distribution of rewards. For example, a person might be asked to rate their agreement with the statement “I believe that people in my society are rewarded fairly for their efforts.”

One such measure is the Distributive Justice Index (DJI), which was developed by Price and Mueller (1986). The DJI is a six-item scale that asks people to rate their agreement with statements about the fairness of the distribution of rewards in their workplace. The items on the DJI are:

• Rewards are distributed fairly in this organization.
• The amount of rewards I receive is related to my contributions to this organization.
• The rewards I receive are fair compared to the rewards received by others in this organization.
• The rewards I receive are fair compared to the rewards I would receive in other organizations.
• The rewards I receive are fair compared to the rewards I deserve.
• I am satisfied with the fairness of the rewards I receive in this organization.

The DJI has been shown to be a reliable and valid measure of distributive justice. It has been used in a variety of research studies, including studies of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover.

The DJI is a useful tool for measuring distributive justice in the workplace. It can be used to identify organizations that are perceived as being fair or unfair in their reward systems. The DJI can also be used to track changes in distributive justice over time.

Here are some of the strengths of the DJI:

• It is a short, easy-to-use measure.
• It has been shown to be reliable and valid in a variety of research studies.
• It is available in a variety of languages.

Here are some of the limitations of the DJI:

• It is a self-report measure, so it is susceptible to social desirability bias.
• It is a relatively new measure, so there is limited research on its long-term validity.
• It is not available in all languages.

Overall, the DJI is a useful tool for measuring distributive justice in the workplace. It is a reliable and valid measure that can be used to identify organizations that are perceived as being fair or unfair in their reward systems. The DJI can also be used to track changes in distributive justice over time.

Reliability

Coefficient alpha values ranged from .75 to .94 (Mansour-Cole & Scott, 1998; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Moorman, 1991; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993).

Validity

Distributive justice correlated positively with job satisfaction, procedural justice, interactive justice, and the organizational citizenship behaviors of courtesy, altruism, sportsmanship, and conscientiousness (Moorman, 1991). Distributive justice also correlated positively with employee sense of control, extent to which an employee benefited personally from a structuring and layoff, leader-member exchange (LMX) with his or her manager, pay satisfaction, employee age, job satisfaction, subordinate’s evaluation of his or her supervisor, and organizational commitment (Mansour-Cole & Scott, 1998; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993). Sweeney and McFarlin (1993) found through confirmatory factor analysis that dis­ tributive justice was one dimensional with the items loading as expected. These analyses also found that distributive and procedural justice were empirically distinct. DeConinck, Stilwell, and Brock (1996) found through confirmatory factor analysis that distributive justice was empirically distinct from four dimensions of the Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire (satisfaction with benefits, last raise, pay level and structure, and administration of the pay plan).

Source                  

Items

Original items and instructions: Fairness in the following questions means the extent to which a person’s contributions to [the organization] are related.

to the rewards received. Money, recognition, and physical facilities are examples of rewards. Responses are obtained on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = rewards are not distributed at all fairly, 2 = very little fairness, 3 = some fairness, 4 = quite fairly distributed, and 5 = rewards are very fairly distributed.

1. To what extent are you fairly rewarded considering the responsibilities that you have?
2. To what extent are you fairly rewarded taking into account the amount of education and training that you have had?
3. To what extent are you fairly rewarded in view of the amount of experience that you have?
4. To what extent are you fairly rewarded for the amount of effort that you put forth?
5. To what extent are you fairly rewarded for the work that you have done well?
6. To what extent are you fairly rewarded for the stresses and strains of your job?

Modified items and instructions:

In this section, we are interested in how fair you feel your current work situa­ tion is as compared to your co-workers. Responses are obtained using a 5- point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5= strongly agree.

1. I feel that my current job responsibilities are fair
2. Overall, the rewards I receive here now are quite fair
3. I consider my current workload to be quite fair
4. I think that my current level of pay is fair
5. My current work schedule is fair