distributive injustice
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

48
(FIVE YEARS 15)

H-INDEX

7
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2022 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
LaJuan Perronoski Fuller

Diversity and inclusion concepts remain unclear, which has generated an explosion of new viewpoints to pursue distributive justice. These variations suggest the need for a criterion to recognize partiality or prejudices in diversity and inclusion practices. This study applies the social identity approach to investigate the impact of diversity and inclusion distributive injustices on an employee’s organizational identity. Research on perceived employee distributive injustice (PEDI) suggests organizations that favor a person's social categorization or identity may more likely create unfair compensations and incentive biases. This study hypothesizes that distributive injustices can recognize diversity and inclusion practices that negatively affect an employee’s organizational identity. The study consists of 451 full-time US employees. A Cronbach's alpha coefficient for distributive injustice is .94, and organizational identity is .92. The findings confirm that leaders and HR professionals who implement diversity and inclusion practices that favor a social characteristic or identity will erode organizational identity. 


Author(s):  
Mansour A. Alyahya ◽  
Ibrahim A. Elshaer ◽  
Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih

The COVID-19 pandemic has severe psychological and psychosocial impacts on hotel workers. This study examines the causal direct impact of both job insecurity and distributive injustice, which were common in hotels post COVID-19, on social loafing behavior among hotel workers, and the indirect impact through turnover intention. Data were collected from 850 hotels workers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Using results obtained through structural equation modeling (SEM), the spread of both job insecurity and distributive injustice positively and significantly influences turnover intention among hotel workers post the COVID-19 pandemic. The results also found that turnover intention fully mediates the influence of both distributive injustices on social loafing behavior. On the other side, it partially mediates job insecurity on social loafing behavior among hotel workers. Implications for scholars and practitioners as well as limitations of current research are discussed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
LaJuan Perronoski Fuller

The social norm theory suggests that leaders who rely on perceived norms (misperceptions) rather than actual norms may produce unfair work advantages. Furthermore, social norms alter ethical leadership behaviors. However, leadership adheres to social norms due to society's implied compliance in the absence of distributive injustice measurements. Therefore, distributive injustice may be a more salient predictor than distributive justice on affective organizational commitment. The aim of this study was to fill gaps in literature on distributive injustice and investigate negative influences on employees’ affective commitment. A distributive injustice scale was designed using employee perceptions of policies that create unfair advantages and meritless rewards. The distributive injustice scale consisted of 14 items. A survey was sent to 481 full-time employees in various industries throughout the U.S. Correlation and regression model output indicated that unfair advantages and meritless rewards had a negative relationship and influence on employees’ affective commitment. Social norm policies that create unfair advantages and meritless rewards can be perceived as a divisionary tacit that negatively impacts affective commitment.


Author(s):  
Alejandro García-Romero ◽  
David Martinez-Iñigo

Previous research has shown that surface acting—displaying an emotion that is dissonant with inner feelings—negatively impacts employees’ well-being. However, most studies have neglected the meaning that employees develop around emotional demands requiring surface acting. This study examined how employees’ responsibility attributions of client behavior demanding surface acting influence employees’ emotional exhaustion, and the mediational role of distributive justice in this relationship. Relying on Fairness Theory, it was expected that employees’ responsibility attributions of client behavior demanding emotion regulation would be related to their perceptions of distributive injustice during the service encounter, which in turn would mediate the effects of responsibility attribution on emotional exhaustion. In addition, drawing on the conservation of resources model, we contended that leader support would moderate the impact of distributive injustice on emotional exhaustion. Two scenario-based experiments were conducted. Study 1 (N = 187) manipulated the attribution of responsibility for emotional demands. The findings showed that distributive injustice and emotional exhaustion were higher when responsibility for the surface acting demands was attributed to the client. A bootstrapping mediational analysis confirmed employees’ attributions have an indirect effect on emotional exhaustion through distributive justice. Study 2 (N = 227) manipulated responsibility attribution and leader support. The leader support moderation effect was confirmed.


Author(s):  
Thomas Mrozla

The purpose of this study was twofold. First, it examined how procedural and distributive justice influence college students’ perceptions of adoption of body-worn cameras by the police. Second, it explored how procedural and distributive justice influence college students’ perceptions of the ability of body-worn cameras to improve community relations, decrease citizen complaints, increase police officer respect, increase citizen respect, and improve training. Those who perceived distributive injustice were more likely to agree that the police should adopt body-worn cameras. Perceived distributive injustice was also a consistent predictor regarding the varying abilities of body-worn cameras.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Berkey

The Covid-19 pandemic has caused significant economic hardships for millions of people around the world. Meanwhile, many of the world’s richest people have seen their wealth increase substantially during the pandemic, despite the significant economic disruptions that it has caused on the whole. It is uncontroversial that these effects, which have exacerbated already unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality, call for robust policy responses from governments. In this paper, I argue that the disparate economic effects of the pandemic also generate direct obligations of justice for those who have benefitted from pandemic windfalls. Specifically, I argue that even if we accept that those who benefit from distributive injustice in the ordinary, predictable course of life within unjust institutions do not have direct obligations to redirect their unjust benefits to those who are unjustly disadvantaged, there are powerful reasons to hold that benefitting from pandemic windfalls does ground such an obligation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document