Finally, let us understand that when we stand together, we will always win. When men and women stand together for justice, we win. When black, white and Hispanic people stand together for justice, we win. - Bernie Sanders

1. Organizational Justice
www.humanikaconsulting.com

3. Seta A. Wicaksana
0811 19 53 43
wicaksana@humanikaconsulting.com
• Founder and Managing Director of Humanika Amanah Indonesia
– Humanika Consulting
• Founder and Managing Director of Humanika Bisnis Digital –
hipotest.com
• Ahli Senior di Komite Kebijakan Pengelolaan Kinerja Organisasi
dan SDM (KPKOS) Dewan Pengawas BPJS Ketenagakerjaan
• Dosen Tetap Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Pancasila
• Pembina Yayasan Humanika Edukasi Indonesia
• Penulis Buku “SOBAT” Elexmedia Gramedia 2016
• Organizational Development Expertise
• Pengembang Alat Tes minat bakat BRIGHT dan Sistem Tes
Psikologi berbasis aplikasi di hipotest.com
• Sedang mengikuti tugas belajar Doktoral (S3) di Fakultas Ilmu
Ekonomi dan Bisnis Universitas Pancasila Bidang MSDM
• Fakultas Psikologi S1 dan S2 Universitas Indonesia
• Mathematics: Cryptology sekolah ikatan dinas Sandi Negara

5. Organizational Justice
• Organizational justice, first postulated by Greenberg in
1987, refers to an employee’s perception of their
organization’s behaviors, decisions and actions and how
these influence the employees’ own attitudes and
behaviors at work.
• The term is closely connected to the concept of fairness;
employees are sensitive to decisions made on a day-to-day
basis by their employers, both on the small and large scale,
and will judge these decisions as unfair or fair. These
judgements influence an individual’s behavior and can, in
cases where the actions have a personal effect on the
employee and are judged as unfair, lead to workplace
deviance.
• Organizational justice is concerned with all matters of
workplace behavior, from treatment by superiors to pay,
access to training and gender equality. It is originally
derived from equity theory, which suggests individuals
make judgements on fairness based on the amount they
give (input) compared to the amount they get back
(output).
• Ensuring organizational justice should be a priority for
organization – it can reduce the incidence of workplace
deviance, absence, disengagement and counterproductive
workplace behaviors (CWB) and also encourage positive
attributes like trust and progressive communication.

6. Organizational Justice
• Organizational justice is a personal evaluation about the ethical and moral standing of managerial conduct.
• Concerns how employees’ view fairness in the workplace. It means the perception of an employee and/or
group of employees regarding the fairness received from an organization.
• The study of fairness in the workplace. This construct includes four components: distributive justice,
procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice
• Is based on an individual’s perception of the fairness of treatment received from an organization, and their
behavioral reactions to such perceptions.
• The extent to which employees perceive fairness of the distribution of resources, procedures, and
interactions within a diverse organization.
• The ways fair and unfair attitudes and behaviors in organizations are perceived by individuals.
https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/understanding-and-managing-organisational-culture-and-justice/21510

7. Definition
• Within the organizational science
literature, it is well understood that
organizations that treat their
employees well tend to be more
effective.
• Organizational justice has been
linked to job performance at the
individual, team, and organizational
level, including both task and
contextual performance.
• Its three components distributive,
procedural, interactional justice.
• Furthermore, we will introduce a
set of practical ways how you can
achieve organizational justice and
the benefits associated with it in
your organization.

8. Dimensions

9. Distributive justice
occurs when
employees believe
that outcomes are
equitable
Distributive Justice: Fairness of
Outcome Distribution
• These outcomes are either
tangible, such as pay, or
intangible, such as positive
feedback.
• When employees believe
that they are being paid or
treated equally, then this
results in distributive justice
(Adams, 1965).(Colquitt et al., 2013)

10. Whereas distributive
justice focuses on
outcomes,
procedural justice
focuses on the
fairness of the
decision-making or
process that leads to
these outcomes.
Procedural Justice: Fairness of
Decision-Making Processes
• Employees perceive
procedural justice when
they feel they
can voice their opinion
regarding the process.
• Employees also believe
procedures are fair when
they are consistent,
accurate, ethical, and lack
bias.(Colquitt et al., 2013)

11. Interactional justice
focuses on the way in
which an individual is
treated when
decisions are made
Interactional Justice: Fairness of Decision-
Making Treatment and Communication
• Individuals feel they are being
treated fairly when employers
provide explanations for
decisions and treat employees
with dignity, respect, and
sensitivity.
• Interactional justice can also
be broken down into two
types – interpersonal and
informational justice.(Colquitt et al., 2013)

12. Interpersonal and
Informational Justice
• Interpersonal justice
Interpersonal justice focuses on the way in which
organizations treat employees, with an emphasis
on respect and courtesy.
• Informational justice
Informational justice focuses on whether
employers provide adequate explanations to
employees with an emphasis on timeliness,
specificity, and truthfulness (Colquitt, 2011)

13. How to Improve Organizational Justice?
EFFECTIVE
ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMUNICATION
EMPLOYEE
PARTICIPATION
EMPLOYEE MOOD AND
EMOTIONS

14. Effective Organizational
Communication
• When employers use effective
communication, this can result in perceptions
of interpersonal and informational justice
(Kernan & Hanges, 2002).
• It is important that organizations use quality
communication when explaining decisions to
employees because this can increase trust, for
both management and the organization
(Kernan & Hanges, 2002).
• An example of this is when organizations need
to make several job positions redundant. It is
important to explain to all employees why the
redundancies are occurring and to also treat
those laid off with dignity and fair treatment.

15. Greenberg’s Research
• Greenberg (1990) tested this rationale in a field-
based experiment, whereby a manufacturing
organization reduced pay in two of its plants. In one
of the plants, the reason for the pay cut was
explained in a sensitive and respective manner and
in the other plant, no explanation was given to
employees.
• Following the pay cut, Greenberg (1990) examined
the amount of employee theft that occurred in the
two plants.
• As expected those whose pay was cut had higher
theft rates whereas those who received a sensitive
explanation stole less; moreover, perceptions of
inequity were reduced (Greenberg, 1990)

16. Employee Participation
• Another predictor of organizational justice is
employee participation.
• When organizations include employees in decision-
making processes regarding organizational
procedures this increases perceptions of justice.
• This increase in organizational justice occurs even
when the outcome is not in the employee’s favor
(Bies & Shapiro, 1988).
• Research has also shown that when employees are
given voice or input in organizational procedures this
increases perceptions of both procedural and
interpersonal justice (Kernan & Hanges, 2002)

17. Employee Mood and Emotions
• When organizational events occur, this can have an
impact on employee mood and emotions.
• Moreover, employees interpret events differently and
this can depend on employee disposition; for
example, when a crisis occurs some employees might
be more anxious than others.
• In fact, a meta-analytic review found that state and
trait level affect can influence justice perceptions
(Barsky & Kaplan, 2007).
• When employees experience both positive state and
trait positive affectivity, they are more likely to have
higher perceptions of interactional, procedural and
distributive justice (Barsky & Kaplan, 2007).
• Depressed individuals also tend to have more
negative perceptions of organizational justice (Lang et
al., 2011).

18. Organizational Justice is an
Individual and Team Level
Phenomenon
• Organizational justice is both an individual and team level
phenomenon. Most research has been conducted at the
individual level yet there is research showing that organizational
justice operates at the team level, particularly in terms of team
climate. Employees are influenced by colleagues and team levels
in their perceptions of justice and this can lead to team level
perceptions of organizational justice in the form of a justice
climate (Li & Cropanzano, 2009).
• For example, if there is a crisis within the organization, team
members can share their perceptions with each other and this
can lead to a shared interpretation of events. Team members are
also influenced by each other and this can lead to homogeneity
in team perceptions of justice, creating a strong climate
(Roberson & Colquitt, 2005). Colquitt and colleagues also
showed that teams with a high justice climate tend to perform
more effectively, in terms of performance and
less absenteeism (Colquitt, Noe & Jackson, 2002).

19. Benefits of Organizational
Justice
• Organizational justice is an important construct because it
affects outcomes at the individual, team and organizational
level. Research has shown that organizational justice is
linked to positive outcomes such as
• trust,
• job performance and satisfaction,
• organizational commitment, and
• organizational citizenship behaviors (Colquitt et al.,
2013).
• Organizational justice is also linked to negative outcomes
such as counterproductive work behaviors, turnover
and burnout, such that employees who perceive fairness in
outcomes and processes tend to engage less in these
negative behaviors (Colquitt et al., 2013).
• It is important for organizations to ensure that they treat
their employees fairly through ensuring that both outcomes
and processes are equitable and just. Organizations can
ensure that organizational practices are transparent and
equitable so that employees remain committed to the goals
of the organization

20. Critical Appraisal of Organizational Justice:
Solidity Level 5
BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
TEAM-EFFICACY AND TEAM
PERFORMANCE, THIS DOSSIER IS
ASSIGNED A LEVEL 5 RATING, (BASED
ON A 1- 5 MEASUREMENT SCALE).
A LEVEL 5 IS THE HIGHEST RATING
SCORE FOR A DOSSIER BASED ON THE
EVIDENCE PROVIDED ON THE EFFICACY
OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE. TO DATE,
THE RESEARCH ON ORGANIZATIONAL
JUSTICE HAS DEMONSTRATED THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS CONSTRUCT ON
A MYRIAD OF ORGANIZATIONAL
OUTCOMES.
MOREOVER, THE RESEARCH HAS BEEN
CONDUCTED AT THE INDIVIDUAL,
TEAM, AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

21. Key Take-
Aways
• Organizational justice consists of three
main forms – distributive, procedural, and
interactional.
• Distributive justice occurs when employees
believe that outcomes are equitable
• Procedural justice focuses on the fairness
of the decision-making
• Interactional justice focuses on the way in
which an individual is treated when
decisions are made
• Effective communication results in
interactional justice
• Perceptions of justice increase when
employers include employees in decision-
making
• State and trait affect influence perceptions
of justice
• Organizational justice is both an individual
and team-level phenomenon
• Organizational Justice influences outcomes
at the individual, team and organizational
level

22. … and Further Readings
• Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it's unfair: A quantitative synthesis of affect and
organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 286–295.
• Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1988). Voice and justification: their influence on procedural fairness
judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 676-685.
• Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
• Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in Teams: Antecedents and Consequences of
Procedural Justice Climate, Personnel Psychology, 55, 83-109.
• Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013).
Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based
perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 2, 199-236.
• Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-
22.Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay
cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 5, 561-568.
• Kernan, M. C., & Hanges, P. J. (2002). Survivor reactions to reorganization: antecedents and consequences
of procedural, interpersonal and information justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 916-928.
• Lang, J., Bliese, P. D., Lang, J. W. B., & Adler, A. B. (2011, February 7). Work Gets Unfair for the Depressed:
Cross-Lagged Relations Between Organizational Justice Perceptions and Depressive Symptoms. Journal of
Applied Psychology.
• Li, A., & Cropanzano, R. (2009). Fairness at the group level: Justice climate and intra-unit justice
climate. Journal of Management, 35, 564-599.
• Roberson, Q. M., & Colquitt, J. A. 2005. Shared and configural justice: A social network model of justice in
teams. Academy of Management Review, 30, 595-607.

23. Learning and Giving
for Better Indonesia
www.humanikaconsulting.com