1、 外文翻译 译文 The Management of Organizational Justice Material Source： Academy of Management Perspectives Author： by Russell Cropanzano, David E. Bowen, and Stephen W. Gilliland Business organizations are generally understood to be economic institutions.Sometimes implicitly,other times explicitly, this
2、“rational” perspective has shaped the relationship that many employers have with their workforce. Many organizations, for example, emphasize the quid pro quo exchange of monetary payment for the performance of concrete tasks. These tasks are often rationally described via job analysis and formally a
3、ppraised by a supervisor. Hierarchical authority of this type is legitimized based upon the managers special knowledge or expertise. Employee motivation is viewed as a quest for personal economic gain, so individual merit pay is presumed to be effective. Using the rational model, one can make a case
4、 for downsizing workers who are not contributing adequately to the “bottom line.”And the rational model is found at the heart of the short-term uptick in the stock price of firms that carry out aggressive cost-cutting measures. Businesses certainly are economic institutions, but they are not only ec
5、onomic institutions. Indeed, adherence to this paradigm without consideration of other possibilities can have problematic side effects. Merit pay is sometimes ineffective, downsizing often has pernicious long-term effects, and bureaucratic management can straitjacket workers and reduce innovation. W
6、e should attend to economic matters, but also to the sense of duty that goes beyond narrowly defined quid pro quo exchanges. It includes the ethical obligations that one party has to the other. Members may want a lot of benefits, but they also want something more. Organizational justicemembers sense
7、 of the moral propriety of how they are treatedis the “glue” that allows people to work together effectively. Justice defines the very essence of individuals relationship to employers. In contrast, injustice is like a corrosive solvent that can dissolve bonds within the community. Injustice is hurtf
8、ul to individuals and harmful to organizations. In this paper we will discuss organizational justice, with an emphasis on how it can be brought to the workplace. We first define justice, paying careful attention to its 2 three core dimensions: distributive, procedural, and interactional. We then exa
9、mine why justice is important; we will consider various criterion variables that justice favorably influences. Once we understand the nature of justice we will be in a better position to describe how it can be brought about. The lesson here is that organizational justice actually has to be managed.
10、This paper will provide specific techniques and recommendations for doing so. What Is Organizational Justice? Prescription vs Description. Philosophers and social commentators were writing about justice long before management scientists were. Organizational justice borrows from these older tradition
11、s, it has its own distinctions. Why Employees Care About Justice Managers too often assume that justice, in the minds of employees, means only that they receive desirable outcomes. These managers are confusing out饿 come favorability with outcome justice. The former is a judgment of personal worth or
12、 value; the latter is a judgment of moral propriety. Evidence shows that outcome justice and outcome favorability are distinct and correlated between .19 and .49, depending on where and how the variablesn are measured. In so many words, its important to get what you want, but other things matter as
13、well. For this reason it is useful to consider three reasons justice matters to people.Long-range benefits. People often “sign on” forthe long haul. Consequently, they need to estimate now how they are likely to be treated over time. A just organization makes this prediction easy. According to the “
14、control model,” employees prefer justice because it allows them to predict and control the outcomes they are likely to receive from organizations. According to the control model of justice, appropriate personnel policies signal that things are likely to work out eventually. Most of us understand tha
15、t every personnel decision cannot go our way, but justice provides us with more certainty regarding our future benefits. For this reason the control model proposes that people are often motivated by economic and quasi-economic interests.People want fairness because fairness provides things they like
16、. There is more than a little truth to this idea. For instance, when individuals are rewarded for successfully completing a task they report being happy and having pride in their performance. This is so even when their success resulted from cheating. At the same time, these individuals also report f
17、eeling guilty for their unfair behavior, suggesting that individuals can recognize and react to injustice,even when it is personally beneficial. There is sometimes a certain tension between getting what we want and playing 3 by the rules. The two tend to go together, but less so than many believe. F
18、or example, pay satisfaction is only modestly correlated with perceptions of pay justice. If “justice” were based exclusively on obtaining benefits, then one would expect a higher association.Later we shall discuss evidence suggesting that individuals can accept an unfortunate outcome as long as the
19、 process is fair and they are treated with interpersonal dignity.Social considerations. People are social animals.We wish to be accepted and valued by important others while not being exploited or harmed by powerful decision-makers. In the “group-value model,” just treatment tells us that we are res
20、pected and esteemed by the larger group. We are also at less risk for mistreatment. This sense of belonging is important to us even apart from the economic benefits it can bring. As you might expect, this can pose a potential problem for organizations. Such unfortunate reactions may occur even when
21、an employee simply witnesses the harm and is not personally wronged. Consider, for example, a dayto- day problem faced by many service workers. When these employees see a customer treating one of their coworkers unfairly, the observing worker is apt to experience stress symptoms.Through this mechani
22、sm, injustice may spread ill will throughout a workgroup. Three Components of Justice Research has shown that employees appraise three families of workplace events. They examine the justice of outcomes, the justice of the formal allocation processes, and the justice of interpersonal transactions the
23、y encounter with others .These are shown Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice tend to be correlated. They can be meaningfully treated as three components of overall fairness, and the three components can work together. However, if ones goal is to promote workplace justice, it is usefu
24、l to consider them separately and in detail. This is because each component is engendered in distinct ways, arising from different managerial actions. Distributive Justice Researchers call the first component of justice distributive justice because it has to do with the allocations or outcomes that
25、some get and others do not. Distributive justice is concerned with the reality that not all workers are treated alike; the allocation of outcomes is differentiated in the workplace. Individuals are concerned with whether or not they received their “just share.” Sometimes things are distributively ju
26、st, as when the most qualified person gets promoted. Other times they 4 are not, as when advancement goes to corporate “insiders” with a political relationship to upper management. This simple equation leads to a number of predictions, some of which are not obvious. For example, an individual who ea
27、rns less than an other may still be satisfied, as long as he or she also contributes less. Likewise, a person who is paid equally to another may feel unjustly treated if he or she also contributes substantially more to the organization. These consequences often do not occur to managers, but they mak
28、e good sense in light of equity theory. But by far the most famous prediction from equity theory is the “over-reward effect”that is, what happens when the equation is unbalanced in ones own favor. Procedural Justice Procedural justice refers to the means by which outcomes are allocated, but not spec
29、ifically to the outcomes themselves. Procedural justice establishes certain principles specifying and governing the roles of participants within the decision-mak ing processes. In three papers, Leventhal and his colleagues established some core at tributes that make procedures just;A just process is
30、 one that is applied consistently to all, free of bias, accurate, representative of relevant stakeholders,and consistent with ethical norms. Though surprising to some, research has shown that just procedures can mitigate the ill effects of unfavorable outcomes. Researchers have named this the“fair p
31、rocess effect.” Interactional Justice In a sense, interactional justice may be the simplest of the three components. It refers to how one person treats another. A person is interactionally just if he or she appropriately shares information and avoids rude or cruel remarks. In other words, there are
32、two aspects of interactional justice.The first part, sometimes called informational justice refers to whether one is truthful and provides adequate justifications when things go badly. The second part, sometimes called interpersonal justice,refers to the respect and dignity with which one treats ano
33、ther. In this paper we have examined justice from the perspective of five managerial tasks: hiring, reward systems, conflict management, layoffs, and performance appraisals. These tasks are diverse, but they all involve a degree of risk. Each has the potential to designate some as “winners” and othe
34、rs as “losers.” As a result, organizations hazard the ill will of employees simply because they are making the sorts of decisions necessary to run their businesses. Just play certainly does not 5 guarantee all parties what they want. However, it does hold out the possibility that power will be used
35、in accordance with normative principles that respect the dignity of all involved. This is sound business advice. It is also the right thing to do. Key Words: Organizational Justice ,distributive, procedural, and interactional 组织公平的管理 资料来源：管理科学院研究 作者：罗素、大卫 鲍恩、 斯蒂芬 吉利兰 企业组织通常很熟悉经济体系。有时很含蓄，其他时候很明确，这个合理
36、性的观点已经发展成许多雇主随身携带他们的职工的关系。许多组织机构，例如，强调具体工作执行的绩效给予相对等的交换货币报酬。这些工作经常理性的通过工作分析和被管理人员证实评估描述出来。这个模式的等级体系当局是根据经理的特殊只是活着专长而使其合理化的。员工的积极性被看成是追求个人经济效益的，所以个人绩效工资被假定是有效的。利用合理的模型，一个能提出充分的理由来精简没有 为一线工作做出足够贡献的员工。而且这个合理的模型被发现在位于公司的股票价格短期报升的中心实行有进取心的削减成本的方法。 商业必定是一个经济体系，但他们不仅是经济体系。实际上，遵守这个范例没有不考虑其他可能的副作用影响。绩效工资有时是无
37、效的，裁员经常有着恶性的长期影响，而且官僚的管理会约束工作者而且会减少创新，我们应该致力于经济是想，但是也有这责任心超出仔细而又确定的交换条件市场。它包括一个当事人不得不面对其他人的道德义务。成员们也许想要获得很多好处，但是他们也想要其他更多的东西，组织公平 成员们自己是怎么被 对待的精神礼节的感觉，是一种胶水 允许人们一起有效的工作。 公平定义了特定的个人对于雇主的关系的本质。对比中，不公平就像是一个在一个团体之内使一个固体溶解的侵蚀性的溶剂。不公平对个人是有损害的而且对于组织也是有害的。 文章中我们将要讨论组织公平，着重于强调它在工作场所能带来什么。我们首先定义公平，注意它的三个大规模：分
38、配公平、程序公平、相互公平。我们然后检测为什么公平感如此重要；我们将考虑各种各样的公平好意的影响的标准变量。一旦我们理解公平的本质我们将会在一个很好的文职去描述它怎么能被引起的。这个教训就是组 织公平实际上必须被管理。这篇文章对于怎么做将会提供特别的技术和推荐规范。组织公平是什么？指示对比。为什么员工关心公平管理台频繁的呈现，在员工的思想里面，手段仅仅是他们受到令人满意的收入。这些管理者一直困惑结果倾向伴随着结果公平。前者是判断一个人价值和重要性的；后者是判断道德财产的。证据显示出结果公平以及结果倾向正在 19和 49之间是明显6 和相互对照的。取决于变量时怎么以及在哪被测量的。明确地说，它对
39、于你想要得到什么很重要，但是其他东西也同样重要。为此三个公平的原因是被认为事对人们有用的。长期有利的。人们经常签约 雇佣长期的合同。因此，他们需要估计随着时间的过去他们将会是怎么样被对待，一个公正的组织使这个预言变得容易。根据控制模型，员工更喜欢公平，因为它允许他们预知和控制从组织中接收到的效果。根据公平感控制模型，我们大多数都能懂得每个个人的决定都不能达到我们自己的方式，但是公平感提供给我们更多的我们将来必然的利益。 为此，控制模型建议人们经常被经济有动机以及类似经济利益。人们想要公平因为公平给予他们想要的东西，对于这个观点这是十分真实的，例如，当个人成功的而完成一项工作作为奖励人们就会很开
40、心，而且夸奖他们会因他们所执行的工作所骄傲，这甚至就是他们因欺骗而成功。与此同时，这些个体也报告说因为他们自己的不公平行为而感到愧疚，建议个体收益时能对于不公平承认并且做出反应。 当有的时候在获得我们想要的和根据规章制度比赛时有一定的紧张。这两个倾向在一起，但是比更多人相信少，例如，薪酬满意度仅仅与薪酬公平感有相关联的关系。假如公平是 获得唯一利益为根据的，那么一个人将会期望一个更高的协会。随后我们将要讨论证明建议一个个体只要过程是公平的以及被人们公平的对待就能被接受一个不性的后果。社会注意事项。人们是社会动物。我们希望被接受并且被认为是有价值的，然而不被决策者剥削或者伤害。在团体价值模型里面
41、，公平的对待告诉我们，我们被尊敬以及被一个大群体所尊敬。我们也会有较小的风险被不好的对待。这个归属感很重要的告诉我们设置要远离有可能可以带给我们经济利益的事情。就像你可能想象的那样，这个可以造成一个潜在的组织问题，就像不幸的反应也许会发生甚至当一个员 工仅仅幕节了损害并且不是个人的错误。细想，例如，一个被许多服务性的员工天天面临的问题，当一些员工看到一个顾客对他们同时不公平时，这个注意到的工作者倾向于经验压力症状。通过这个原理，不公正也许传播恶意将会贯穿一个工作组。 公平的三个组成部分 调查者已经表明员工评价三个家族工作场合事件。他们检查效果的公平，这个正式的分配过程公平，以及人际间交往遇到彼
42、此的公平，这些都显示了分配，程序，相互公平都趋向于相关联的，他们都能有意义地被当做全部的三个公平部件来对待，并且三个成分可以工作在一起。然而，如果一个人的目标会促进 工作场合公平，个别地、详细的考虑他们是有用的。这就是因为每个成分都会在明显的方式里产生。由不同的管理行动产生。 分配公平 7 调查者称第一个公平成分叫做分配公平，因为它不得不处理一些人得到而一些人没得到的分配或者产出。分配公平涉了不是所有工作者都被相同的对待这个现实；产出的分配在工作场所有差别，个体涉及是否收到他们的公正的分配。有时候食物被分配公平，就像当有资格的人员升迁时。而有时候他们不是这样的，当提升共同的有这政治党派与上级有
43、关系的内部人员时。 这个简单的一次方程式导致了许多语言，一些不明显的。例如，赚的没 有其他人多的人还是很被别人认为是满意的，只要他或她也贡献一小些。同样地，一个人她或他同样也贡献出实质上更多对于组织的事情，而支付给他与别人同样的薪水时就会感到不公平。这些影响经常不出现在管理者身上。但是他们使得从观点原理上判断力强。但是到目前为止大多数著名的公平理论预言家过多的报酬影响 也就是说，在一个人自己喜爱的方式里发现方程式不公平。 程序公平 程序公平引用了产出被分配的方法，但是对于他们自己的产出不是很特别。程序公平建立必然的原则说明和支配参与者的角色在决心使其过程之内。在三个文件中，玛夏和他的同事们 确
44、定一些核心贡献使程序公平；一个公正的过程对于所有人就是一个被一致地应用，摆脱的偏见，精确的，代表的有关利益相关者，并且与道德标准一致，虽然对于一些人来说很意外，调查者已经显示了公正的程序可以对不顺利的产出使恶不良作用起反应。调查者已经把它命名为公平过程反应。 相互公平 在某种意义上，相互公平也许是三个组成部分中最简单的了，它涉及了一个人怎么对待另一个人。一个人如果适当地分享信息以及避免物理的或残酷的评论就是公平的。换句话说，相互公平有两个方面。一方面是，有时候叫做信息公平涉及了当一件事情进展不顺利时一个人 是真实的以及提供了充足的理由。第二个方面，有时候称作人际间的公平，引用了尊敬和对另一个人的尊重。 这篇文章中，我们从五个管理工作中检测了从观点中的公平：雇佣，奖励机制，冲突管理，裁员，绩效股价。这些工作是不同的，但是他们都包含了风险程度。每一个有潜能去指定一些像成功者和其他像失败者一样。最后，组织恶意冒险员工简单的因为他们到某种程度做决定需要经营他们的生意。公正的比赛当然不能保证他们想要的所有的当事人。然而，它坚持能力将会被与规范的原则一致所有有关的尊敬尊严都包含在内这个可能性。这个听起来是商业的建议，它也 是正确的事情。
