Distributive, Procedural, and Interactive Justice

Description

These measures (Distributive, Procedural, and Interactive Justice) were developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993). A distrib­utive justice subscale (five items) describes the extent to which an employee believes that his or her work outcomes, such as rewards and recognition, are fair. The outcomes include pay level, work schedule, workload, and job responsibilities. A procedural justice subscale (six items) describes the extent to which formal procedures exist and whether these procedures are implemented in a way that takes employees’ needs into consideration. The formal procedures cover the degree to which job decisions are based on com­ plete and unbiased information and that employees have opportunities to ask questions and challenge decisions. An interactive justice subscale (nine items) covers the extent to which employees perceive that their needs are taken into account in making job decisions and that employees are provided with adequate explanations when decisions are finalized.

Reliability

Coefficient alpha for distributive justice ranged from .72 to 74 (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Coefficient alpha for formal procedures was .85 and alpha for interactive justice was .92. A 12- item measure combining items for formal procedures and interactive justice had a coefficient alpha of .98 (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998).

Validity

Formal procedures correlated positively with distributive justice and inter­ active justice. Distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactive justice correlated positively with the five organizational citizenship behaviors of altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic virtue (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Procedural justice and interactive justice cor­ related positively with supervisor observations of employee work. Inter­ active justice correlated positively with formal meetings (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). In Moorman et al. (1998), procedural justice correlated positively with perceived organizational support, interpersonal helping, per­ sonal industry, and loyal boosterism for an organization. Aquino, Lewis, and Bradfield (1999) and Niehoff and Moorman (1993) examined the measures with confirmatory factor analysis and found that distributive, procedural, and interactive justices were empirically distinct. Distributive justice corre­ lated positively with procedural and interactive justice. Distributive justice also correlated negatively with deviant behaviors toward other employees and employee negative affect (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999).

Source

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R.H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556. © 1993 by Academy of Management. Items were taken from Table 1, p. 541. Reproduced with permission of Academy of Management in the format textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.

Items

Responses are obtained on a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.

Distributive justice items:

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

Formal procedures items:

1. Job decisions are made by the general manager in an unbiased manner
2. My general manager makes sure that all employee concerns are heard before job decisions are made
3. To make formal job decisions, my general manager collects accurate and complete information
4. My general manager clarifies decisions and provides additional information when requested by employees
5. All job decisions are applied consistently across all affected employees
6. Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by the general manager

Interactive justice items:

1. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager treats me with kindness and consideration
2. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager treats me with respect and dignity
3. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager is sensitive to my personal needs
4. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager deals with me in a truthful manner
5. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager shows concern for my rights as an employee
6. Concerning decisions about my job, the general manager discusses the implications of the decisions with me
7. The general manager offers adequate justification for decisions made about my job
8. When making decisions about my job, the general manager offers explanations that make sense to me
9. My general manager explains very clearly any decision made about my job