Search

Losing a job is one of life's most stressful events. Furthermore, maladaptive reactions to unemployment can trap people in a vicious cycle that derails their reemployment efforts. The current research tested whether a brief values-based self-affirmation intervention increases the odds of reemployment after a job loss and during unemployment, which presumably breaks this vicious cycle. Two field experiments, including one with a governmental employment agency, found that a 15-min self-affirmation exercise--i.e., reflecting on one's most important values--increased key employment-related outcomes after 4 wk, including the probability and speed of reemployment and the number of job offers. Because the ordeal of job loss and the probability of reemployment may be particularly challenging for individuals above the age of 50 y, we also explored whether the intervention was equally effective for those above and below 50 y of age. Demonstrating the generality of this effect, the efficacy of the intervention did not differ between individuals below and above the age of 50, and it was also effective for both recently unemployed and chronically unemployed individuals. Because self-affirmations have more typically been tested in educational contexts, the current research demonstrates the wide-ranging value of this intervention. By diminishing the vicious cycle of unemployment, the present studies show how a simple self-affirmation intervention can help individuals succeed in the labor market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the article "Managers' Affective Expressions as Determinants of Employee Responses to Change," by Rachael E. Wells and Joel Brockner is presented.

Four studies examined when and why the trustworthiness of subordinates influenced their managers' procedural fairness towards them. Subordinates seen as having more benevolence trustworthiness elicited greater procedural fairness from their managers, whereas subordinates seen as having less integrity trustworthiness elicited greater procedural fairness. Moreover, the positive (negative) relationship between subordinates' benevolence (integrity) trustworthiness and managers' procedural fairness was more pronounced when subordinates were perceived as higher in ability trustworthiness. Additional moderating and mediating findings suggest that managers' tendencies to show high procedural fairness towards their subordinates reflect two different underlying motivations: (1) to help managers maintain or cultivate good working relationships with their subordinates, and (2) to maintain control over their subordinates, that is, to make it less likely for subordinates to behave in ways that disrupt managers from attaining their goals. Implications for the organizational justice and trust literatures are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research conducted on a Western sample has shown that people are less apt to exhibit in-group favoritism when they perform well individually while their in-group performs poorly. The authors evaluated whether this finding would be moderated by the cultural dimension of individual--collective primacy, which refers to whether people give more weight to their personal interests rather than their in-group's interests when forced to choose between the two. The authors hypothesized that relative to their counterparts from the United States, participants from the People's Republic of China would have more of a collective-primacy orientation and therefore would exhibit more in-group favoritism when they performed well individually while their in-group performed poorly. The results supported the hypothesis. Implications for the literatures on in-group favoritism and cross-cultural differences are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supervisors are usually older, more educated, and longer tenured than their subordinates, a situation known as status congruence. However, subordinates are increasingly experiencing status incongruence , in which their supervisors lack these traditional status markers. We examine how status congruence versus incongruence interacts with subordinates' judgments of their supervisors' competence to influence subordinates' perceptions of the promotion system. Grounded in system justification theory, we predicted and found that when the supervisor was relatively less competent, status congruence led to perceptions of greater promotion system fairness (Study 1) and promotion system acceptance (Study 2), particularly under conditions known to heighten system justification motivation (a low sense of power in Study 1 and low system escapability in Study 2). Moreover, to triangulate on the role of system justification, we created an implicit measure of the construct and showed in two additional studies (3a and 3b) that participants engaged in more system justification under conditions in which our theoretical rationale suggested they would. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Contrary to an often-found result in the organizational justice literature, we suggest that there may be circumstances under which organization members will not perform poorly in response to being on the receiving end of low procedural fairness. To explain the theoretical mechanism, we integrate the group engagement model of justice with the emotion regulation perspective. Specifically, we argue that the detrimental effect of lower procedural fairness on performance is attenuated when individuals engage in reappraisal. Moreover, this is the case because reappraisal makes lower procedural fairness less likely to undermine self-perceived standing in the organization. Three experiments and a multisource survey among employees reveal support for these predictions. This research contributes to the organizational justice literature by showing that reappraisal can help maintain performance when people have experienced low procedural fairness, extending the typical finding that low procedural fairness undermines performance. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The justice literature suggests that providing accounts for negative organizational decisions can enhance observers' perceptions of fairness and positive views of the organization. However, prior research has yet to distinguish between why- and how-information contained within accounts. Drawing from construal level theory, we test whether accounts focusing on why a negative workplace decision occurred are more effective for observers at higher (more abstract) levels of construal, whereas accounts focusing on how the decision was implemented are more effective for observers at lower (more concrete) levels of construal. Examining the effects of both dispositional and situationally induced forms of construal, we randomly assigned observers to receive accounts of why a company layoff was made versus how it was implemented. Across two studies, we find that explaining why leads to greater perceived fairness and more positive company impressions among individuals at higher levels of construal. We also find in Study 2 that describing how layoff recipients were treated respectfully elicits more positive reactions among individuals at lower levels of construal. Our findings illuminate a cognitive mechanism for when different types of accounts ameliorate observers' reactions to an undesirable organizational event-accounts of why and how are more effective under conditions of construal fit. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Prior research has shown that procedural fairness interacts with outcome fairness to influence employees' work attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment) and behaviors (e.g., job performance, organizational citizenship behavior), such that employees' tendencies to respond more positively to higher procedural fairness are stronger when outcome fairness is relatively low. In the present studies, we posited that people's uncertainty about their standing as organizational members would have a moderating influence on this interactive relationship between procedural fairness and outcome fairness, in that the interactive relationship was expected to be more pronounced when uncertainty was high. Using different operationalizations of uncertainty of standing (i.e., length of tenure as a proxy, along with self-reports and coworkers' reports), we found support for this hypothesis in 4 field studies spanning 3 different countries., (2010 APA, all rights reserved)

Fairness theory (R. Folger & R. Cropanzano, 1998, 2001) postulates that, particularly in the face of unfavorable outcomes, employees judge an organizational authority to be more responsible for their outcomes when the authority exhibits lower procedural fairness. Three studies lent empirical support to this notion. Furthermore, 2 of the studies showed that attributions of responsibility to the authority mediated the relationship between the authority's procedural fairness and employees' reactions to unfavorable outcomes. The findings (a) provide support for a key assumption of fairness theory, (b) help to account for the pervasive interactive effect of procedural fairness and outcome favorability on employees' attitudes and behaviors, and (c) contribute to an emerging trend in justice research concerned with how people use procedural fairness information to make attributions of responsibility for their outcomes. Practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research also are discussed., ((c) 2007 APA)

When employees believe they are being treated fairly-when they feel heard, when they understand how and why important decisions are made, and when they believe they are respected-their companies will benefit. Research shows that practicing process fairness reduces legal costs from wrongful-termination suits, lowers employee turnover, helps generate support for new strategic initiatives, and fosters a culture that promotes innovation. What's more, it costs little financially to implement Yet few companies practice it consistently. Joel Brockner examines this paradox, exploring psychological and other reasons that cause managers to resist embracing process fairness. The fact that it's relatively inexpensive to implement, for instance, may be why some numbers-oriented executives undervalue it. Many managers believe that they practice process fairness, but 360-degree feedback tells another story. Some corporate policies actually undermine it--such as when the legal department won't let managers fully explain decisions for fear that disclosure could expose the firm to lawsuits. And, frequently, managers simply follow the all-too-human tendency to avoid uncomfortable situations. But the good news is that organizations can take concrete steps to promote greater process fairness. Many studies have shown that training programs make a big difference, and the author describes the most effective format. In addition, warning your managers that they may experience negative emotions when practicing fair process will help prepare them to cope with those feelings. Finally, role modeling fair process on the executive level will help spread the practice throughout the organization. The fact is, process fairness is the responsibility of all executives, at all levels and in all functions; it cannot be delegated to HR. The sooner managers realize that and work to make it a company norm, the better off the organization will be.

To help employees better manage work-life conflict, organizations have introduced various initiatives, which have met with mixed results. The present studies examined the utility of a procedurally based approach to understanding employees' reactions to work-life conflict. The authors examined whether the fairness of procedures used by organizational authorities to plan and implement decisions moderates the (inverse) relationship between work-life conflict and employees' organizational commitment. Three studies using different methodologies showed support for the moderating role played by procedural fairness. That is, the tendency for greater work-life conflict to lead to lower commitment was significantly less pronounced when procedural fairness was high rather than low. Theoretical contributions to the work-life conflict and organizational justice literatures are discussed, as are practical implications.

The present research examines episodes of favor exchange among peer employees. We posit that favor receivers' and favor givers' commitment to their exchange relationships with one another will be accounted for by different factors. As predicted, in 2 different organizational contexts, receivers' commitment to their relationships with givers was found to be more related to their judgments of the givers' interactional justice when performing the favor, whereas givers' commitment to their relationships with receivers was shown to be more associated with their judgments of the favorability of the outcomes associated with the favor that they performed. The implications of these findings for how givers and receivers can better manage favor exchange, and hence their relationships with each other, are discussed., (((c) 2003 APA, all rights reserved))