IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v11y2021i3p21582440211040796.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Communication of Justice, Injustice, and Necessary Evils: An Empirical Examination

Author

Listed:
  • Meghan A. Thornton-Lugo
  • Deborah E. Rupp

Abstract

The prevailing approach to studying justice in the workplace has focused on recipients and observers of justice. This approach, however, fails to consider the experience of other parties including those who communicate justice. To understand the experience of communicating fairness, we investigated how justice, injustice, and necessary evils differentially affect guilt and stress. In addition, we explored how communicating bad news compares to these experiences. Across two studies, we found evidence showing that guilt and stress were affected by what was being communicated, such that injustice and necessary evils provoked more guilt and stress than justice. These findings highlight how justice broadly affects communicators psychologically and physiologically.

Suggested Citation

  • Meghan A. Thornton-Lugo & Deborah E. Rupp, 2021. "The Communication of Justice, Injustice, and Necessary Evils: An Empirical Examination," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:21582440211040796
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440211040796
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440211040796
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440211040796?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brockner, Joel & Davy, Jeanette & Carter, Carolyn, 1985. "Layoffs, self-esteem, and survivor guilt: Motivational, affective, and attitudinal consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 229-244, October.
    2. Tammy E. Beck & Donde Ashmos Plowman, 2009. "Experiencing Rare and Unusual Events Richly: The Role of Middle Managers in Animating and Guiding Organizational Interpretation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(5), pages 909-924, October.
    3. Nicklin, Jessica M. & Greenbaum, Rebecca & McNall, Laurel A. & Folger, Robert & Williams, Kevin J., 2011. "The importance of contextual variables when judging fairness: An examination of counterfactual thoughts and fairness theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 127-141, March.
    4. Cohen-Charash, Yochi & Spector, Paul E., 2001. "The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 278-321, November.
    5. Shapiro, Debra L. & Buttner, E. Holly & Barry, Bruce, 1994. "Explanations: What Factors Enhance Their Perceived Adequacy?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 346-368, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alder, G. Stoney & Ambrose, Maureen L., 2005. "An examination of the effect of computerized performance monitoring feedback on monitoring fairness, performance, and satisfaction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 161-177, July.
    2. Ganegoda, Deshani B. & Folger, Robert, 2015. "Framing effects in justice perceptions: Prospect theory and counterfactuals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 27-36.
    3. Rasim Serdar Kurdoglu, 2020. "The Mirage of Procedural Justice and the Primacy of Interactional Justice in Organizations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 495-512, December.
    4. Ralf Bebenroth & Kai Oliver Thiele, 2015. "When Organizational Justice Matters for Affective Merger Commitment," Discussion Paper Series DP2015-22, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    5. Manuela Richter & Cornelius J. König & Marlene Geiger & Svenja Schieren & Jan Lothschütz & Yannik Zobel, 2018. "“Just a Little Respect”: Effects of a Layoff Agent’s Actions on Employees’ Reactions to a Dismissal Notification Meeting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(3), pages 741-761, December.
    6. Maura A. Belliveau, 2012. "Engendering Inequity? How Social Accounts Create vs. Merely Explain Unfavorable Pay Outcomes for Women," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1154-1174, August.
    7. Russell S. Cropanzano & Sebastiano Massaro & William J. Becker, 2017. "Deontic Justice and Organizational Neuroscience," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(4), pages 733-754, September.
    8. Hubert Chan & E. Ngai, 2010. "What Makes Customers Discontent with Service Providers? An Empirical Analysis of Complaint Handling in Information and Communication Technology Services," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 73-110, February.
    9. Chenot, David & Boutakidis, Ioakim & Benton, Amy D., 2014. "Equity and fairness perceptions in the child welfare workforce," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 400-406.
    10. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    11. Amy R. Ward & Mor Armony, 2013. "Blind Fair Routing in Large-Scale Service Systems with Heterogeneous Customers and Servers," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 228-243, February.
    12. Amar Fall & Fatéma Safy-Godineau & David Carassus, 2018. "Perceptions de justice organisationnelle dans les collectivités locales : quels impacts sur le bien-être psychologique au travail et sur l’intention de quitter des agents ?," Post-Print hal-02142237, HAL.
    13. Ankita Tandon & Unnikrishnan K. Nair, 2015. "Enactment of knowledge brokering: Agents, roles, processes and the impact of immersion," Working papers 183, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.
    14. Thuy-Van Tran & Sinikka Lepistö & Janne Järvinen, 2021. "The relationship between subjectivity in managerial performance evaluation and the three dimensions of justice perception," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 369-399, September.
    15. Alpenberg, Jan & Paul Scarbrough, D., 2018. "Trust and control in changing production environments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 527-534.
    16. Dodgson, Mary Kate & Agoglia, Christopher P. & Bennett, G. Bradley, 2021. "The influence of relationship partners on client managers’ negotiation positions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    17. Pujol-Cols, Lucas J. & Lazzaro-Salazar, Mariana, 2018. "Psychosocial risks and job satisfaction in argentinian scholars: exploring the moderating role of work engagement," Nülan. Deposited Documents 2966, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    18. Stephanie Hastings & Joan Finegan, 2011. "The Role of Ethical Ideology in Reactions to Injustice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 100(4), pages 689-703, June.
    19. Hakan Yalçın & Yeliz Yalçın, 2022. "A Meta Analysis of the Relationship between Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction: The Case of Turkey," Istanbul Business Research, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 51(2), pages 417-432, November.
    20. Turel, Ofir & Connelly, Catherine E., 2013. "Too busy to help: Antecedents and outcomes of interactional justice in web-based service encounters," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 674-683.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:21582440211040796. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.