Using Procedures to Justify Outcomes: Testing the Viability of a Procedural Justice Strategy for Managing Conflict and Allocating Resources in Work Organizations

Abstract

This study tests the viability of a procedural justice strategy for making managerial decisions so as to simultaneously deal with the organizational objectives of (a) attaining the task goals of efficiency and productivity and (b) maintaining commitment to the group. In the past, managers have been believed to have had to balance tradeoffs among varying distributive justice principles (equity, equality, and need) to obtain these same objectives. This study tests the possibility of maintaining commitment to the group through the use of fair decision-making procedures, while making allocation and dispute resolution decisions using distribution principles that enhance the attainment of task objectives. The results of a study of worker's reactions to their experiences with their supervisors suggests in two ways that such a procedural justice strategy is viable. First, the results demonstrate that the impact of experiences on commitment to work organizations is more strongly influenced by judgments of procedural fairness than by judgments of either outcome favorability or outcome fairness. Second, they demonstrate that important aspects of workers' definitions of the meaning of procedural justice are distinct from issues of control or outcome favorability. Both findings support the viability of a procedural justice strategy for effectively allocating resources and resolving conflicts in work settings.