Withdrawn Behaviors under Distributive Injustice:The Influence of Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice
Wang Yan,Long Li-rong,Zhou Hao,Zu Wei
2007-01-01
Acta Psychologica Sinica
Abstract:Introduction Generally, organizational justice and injustice are deemed to be corresponding, suggesting that organizational injustice also has three dimensions, and has negative effect on an organization. Based on previous research, Jawahar proposed that different forms and combinations of justice perceptions were likely to lead to different forms of aggression, which also varied depending on the target of aggression and the manner in which harm was delivered to the victim. However, because Chinese culture emphasizes tolerance' and harmony', overt aggression seldom occurs. On the other hand, in part because organizations in China are undergoing system change, there is little or no absolute organizational justice, whereas distributive injustice is seen as a familiar phenomenon in Chinese organizations. Given these larger social and cultural contexts, it is deemed more fruitful and effective to study the effect of procedural and interactional justice on withdrawn rather than aggressive behaviors. Specifically, the present study aimed to investigate whether procedural and interactional justice would lead to different withdrawn behaviors of different magnitude. Method One hundred and sixty high school teachers participated in the present study. A 2×2 randomized design was adopted, with 4 hypothetical scenarios (consisting of information about the status of distributive injustice, procedural justice/injustice, and interactional justice/injustice) presented to the participants analyze their withdrawn behaviors (e.g. absenteeism, tardiness, intention to quit, and negative attitudes toward the school principal). MANOVA was performed to test the hypotheses. Results The results indicated that when staff promotion was perceived unfair (distributive injustice), (1) both procedural and interactional justice had significant negative main effects on absenteeism; (2) procedural and interactional justice had a significant interaction effect on tardiness; (3) interactional justice had a significant main effect on participants' negative attitudes toward the principal, but procedural justice did not have such an effect; (4) both procedural and interaction justice had no significant effect on participants' intention to quit. Conclusion Whereas existing organizational justice research mainly focuses on theft, retaliation behaviors, self-destruction and job burnout as outcome variables, the present study shows that procedural injustice in organizations can induce withdrawn behaviors of the employees which are deemed more relevant within the cultural and social contexts of China. The present study therefore enriches our understanding of the effect of procedural injustice. Consistent with Jawahar's model of procedural injustice in relation to aggressive behaviors and the research on the effect of distributive, procedural and interactional justice by Zhou and Long, the present study shows that procedural and interactional injustice has negative consequences not only on the organization but also on its interactional parties. The perception of distributive, procedural and interactional injustice together especially hurts Chinese employees who show various withdrawn and passive behaviors. To reduce employee withdrawal and to promote quality of work life, it is important to maintain administrative and organizational fairness and fairness perceptions among the employees.