Procedural Justice and Voice Effects

Abstract

ABSTRACT Granting employees the opportunity to voice their preferences and opinions during the decision making process has been found to benefit the employees, the decision maker and the organization. Voice has been found to increase fairness perceptions of the decision-making procedure, satisfaction with the outcomes, and also results in positive attitudes toward the decision maker. While the majority of procedural justice studies provide evidence of positive effects of voice, few studies investigate the negative effects of voice. The paucity of studies documenting negative voice effects limits researchers' knowledge and understanding of voice and its impact on procedural justice judgments. An examination of the literature regarding negative voice effects revealed the terms frustration and sham were used interchangeably. Thus, the area of study pertaining to procedural justice and negative voice effects appeared ripe for investigation. Narrative analysis of the depth interviews revealed emergent themes that identified participants' reactions to three key turning points of a decision making process. The overriding theme that captures participants' general reactions is suspicion of the decision maker's motivations and the extent to which participant input would be considered in the final decision. This research study makes new contributions to the literature. Findings from this study help disentangle sham and frustration. Frustration occurs when the outcome is known, however, perceptions of sham occur before participants learn the outcome. In addition, a new voice effect, discrepant justice was uncovered. Discrepant justice involves disagreement between procedural and distributive fairness judgments and sheds light on how participants reconcile opposing fairness perceptions. Implications for managers and future research are discussed. INTRODUCTION Procedural justice research emphasizes that individuals pay particular attention to and place importance on decision-making procedures. Moreover, procedural justice theory predicts organizational participants will make fairness judgments about decision-making procedures, which subsequently affect individuals' attitudes and behavior. Research has consistently shown that granting individuals the opportunity to voice their preferences and opinions during the decision-making process increases fairness judgments. The present research is devoted to the study and development of procedural justice with special emphasis on voice effects. The procedural justice literature contains references to positive and negative voice effects. Numerous studies support that voice enhances perceptions of fairness in procedures (positive voice effects). Few studies have investigated negative voice effects resulting in an incomplete view of voice. A body of research involving only one side of a phenomenon, such as voice effects, limits researchers' perspectives and knowledge. Two negative voice effects, sham and frustration, are used interchangeably in the procedural justice literature. Inconsistencies in the use of these terms create confusion for researchers inside and outside the field of organizational justice. Because of the limited research devoted to negative voice effects, it is difficult to distinguish between and understand these two effects. Investigating sham and frustration could prove beneficial to this body of knowledge and open the door to further development of these constructs. Researchers may have assumed negative effects are rare. The present study questions this assumption. Investigating the possible existence and determinants of negative voice effects has the potential to extend procedural justice knowledge. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND Voice Researchers invoke voice as an employee's opportunity to offer input by expressing his or her opinion (Hirschman, 1974). Studies show the organization benefits when employees are given voice in procedures. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.