In this article, I aim at problematizing the implied idea of causality in cognitive evaluations of horizontal justice events. I will draw on theories about retrospective sensemaking and its cognitive foundation in counterfactual belief formation. Issues related to horizontal or intraunit unfairness emerge in situations in which the actions of one employee influence the outcome of another due to relational interdependence. The authors of theories about horizontal unfairness have continued the traditional distinction between the three facets of justice, procedural, distributive, (...) and interactional. However, might employee A blame employee B because she (B) obtained qualitative (e.g., non-monetary appraisal) or quantitative (e.g., monetary compensation) recognition even though the latter did not, directly at least, bring about the event. The problem here is one of causality which asks the question, Can A be blamed by B for bringing about the event of outcome difference? While blame in evaluations of vertical justice certainly presumes causal agency, it might be questioned whether the same goes for horizontal unfairness. Counterfactual belief formation enables a step into the cognitive and retrospective nature of evaluations of horizontal justice events centered on the counterfactual belief “had the unfavorable event X not occurred, another and more favorable event X1 would have occurred.” This is related to the distance between the actual X and the potential event state X), in the sense that the closer the two appear, the more convincing becomes A’s belief to himself. The underlying causality of rewarding processes, however, states that some third party introduces the recognition, for example, a manager, and, therefore, B did not bring about the reward event, the third party did. It seems, then, that to understand this, we should take into consideration: 1) the formation of counterfactual beliefs and 2) the causality of blame. The article concludes that, due to the underlying causality of rewarding processes, one might solely consider one facet of horizontal justice, interactional horizontal justice. However, tapping into the phenomenological dimension of morality might allow one also to address the moral nature of distributive and procedural facets of horizontal justice as the experience of the psychosocial fabric of social reality related with feeling either “as if” one is being treated unfairly or “as if” one is treating others unfairly. (shrink)

This article presents the work of Dr. Manuela Priesemuth. This dissertation examines what happens when employees witness supervisory abuse in the workplace. In particular, it explores whether—and when—employees will respond to witnessing supervisory abuse by engaging in prosocial actions aimed at benefitting the target of abuse. Below, the author discusses the notion of abusive supervision, theoretical perspectives of work on third-party observers, and the conditions under which the author believes third-party observers of abuse are more inclined to engage in positive (...) behavior toward victims. Finally, the reflection commentary provides insights about the research journey in which the author participated. (shrink)

The issue of damaged relationships and of repairing them is very important, especially in recent years with reports of organizations which damage relationships with various stakeholders. Many studies have investigated how individuals react to damaged relationships after perceiving injustice or receiving offense in organizations. A part of this research has been focused on revenge or other types of negative responses. However, individuals can choose to react in other ways than revenge, willing to repair relationships through reconciliation. Recently, the effectiveness of (...) reconciliation to repair damaged relationship in organizations has been linked to restorative justice. For the purpose of this article we are interested in understanding how restorative justice can be effective in repairing damaged or broken relationships in organizations, as inspired by principles of compassion or mercy. In this sense, we look for a convincing philosophical foundation for restorative justice, proposing Levinas’ ethics as a way to justify it. (shrink)

Although the literature on organizational justice enactment is becoming richer, our understanding of the role of the deontic justice motive remains limited. In this article, we review and discuss theoretical approaches to and evidence of the deontic justice motive and deontic justice enactment. While the prevalent understanding of deontic justice enactment focuses on compliance, we argue that this conceptualization is insufficient to explain behaviors that go beyond the call of duty. We thus consider two further forms of deontic behavior: humanistic (...) and supererogatory behavior. Drawing on the concepts of situation strength and person strength, we further argue that the reduced variance in behavior across morally challenging situations makes deontic justice enactment visible. We thus observe deontic justice enactment when an actor’s deontic justice motive collides with strong situational cues or constraints that guide the actor to behave differently. We formulate propositions and develop a theoretical model that links the deontic justice motive to moral maturation and deontic justice enactment. (shrink)

This study investigates why and when employees’ observations of supervisors’ ostracism of coworkers elicit their own feelings of guilt. In this connection, observers’ silence might function as a mediator, and leader–member exchange quality could moderate the process. The tests of these predictions rely on two studies, undertaken in Pakistan: a temporally separated field study using three-wave data (N = 219) and a scenario-based experiment (N = 118). The combined results indicate that employees feel guilty for remaining silent when they witness (...) supervisor ostracism of other colleagues. The positive relationship between such observations of supervisor ostracism and silence behavior is more pronounced among employees who enjoy high-quality relationships with their supervisor. In addition to establishing key theoretical insights, this article alerts organizations to a critical mechanism (silence to avoid upsetting supervisors) by which employees’ observations of how supervisors ostracize others can escalate into their own sense of guilt. (shrink)

A small but growing body of research suggests that witnessing mistreatment affects third-party observers’ attitudes and behaviors. Based on the framework of belief in a just world theory, this study examines perverse secondary victimization which is particularly pervasive in negative workplace gossip from a third-party perspective but has nonetheless received little attention in organizational research. We present a moderated mediation model and hypothesize that third-party observers’ deservingness judgment would mediate the effect of observed negative workplace gossip and interact with their (...) just world beliefs in predicting their unfavorable reactions toward the target. Additionally, an observer’s BJW would exacerbate the positive relationship between observed negative workplace gossip and deservingness judgment, that is, third-party observers with high BJW are more susceptible to victim derogation bias and consider that the target of gossip deserved the victimization experience to maintain their worldview. Data were collected from 210 full-time employees through online questionnaires and the empirical results supported the hypotheses. The study discusses the theoretical and practical implications of the findings. (shrink)

Business and society research has increasingly moved from the margins to the mainstream. Although this progression has benefited from advances in empirical research, the field continues to suffer from considerable methodological challenges that hamper its development. In this introductory article to the special issue, we review how far our field has come in advancing methods and methodologies in business and society research. We also highlight the methods and methodologies covered by the contributors to this special issue and how they help (...) address key shortcomings in our field. Finally, we suggest some promising research methodologies that can address important business and society research challenges going forward. (shrink)

When subordinates have suffered an unfairness, managers sometimes try to compensate them by allocating something extra that belongs to the organization. These reactions, which we label asmanagerial Robin Hood behaviors, are undertaken without the consent of senior leadership. In four studies, we present and test a theory of managerial Robin Hoodism. In study 1, we found that managers themselves reported engaging in Robin Hoodism for various reasons, including a moral concern with restoring justice. Study 2 results suggested that managerial Robin (...) Hoodism is more likely to occur when the justice violations involve distributive and interpersonal justice rather than procedural justice violations. In studies 3 and 4, when moral identity (trait or primed) was low, both distributive and interpersonal justice violations showed similar relationships to managerial Robin Hoodism. However, when moral identity was high, interpersonal justice violations showed a strong relationship to managerial Robin Hoodism regardless of the level of distributive justice. (shrink)