Interactional justice is defined by sociologist John R. Schermerhorn as the "...degree to which the people affected by decision are treated by dignity and respect" (Organizational Behavior, 2013). The theory focuses on the interpersonal treatment people receive when procedures are implemented.
Interactional justice, a subcomponent of organizational justice, has come to be seen as consisting of two specific types of interpersonal treatment (e.g. Greenberg, 1990a, 1993b). The first labeled interpersonal justice, reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities or third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes.
The second, labeled informational justice, focuses on the explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion. Where more adequacy of explanation is prevalent, the perceived level of informational justice is higher (Sam Fricchione, 2006).
Within an organizationedit
It is important that a high degree of interactional justice exists in a subordinate/supervisor relationship in order to reduce the likelihood of counterproductive work behavior. If a subordinate perceives that interactional injustice exists, then the subordinate will hold feelings of resentment toward either the supervisor or institution and will therefore seek to "even the score".[1] A victim of interaction injustice will have increased expressions of hostility toward the offender, co-workers, or the entire organization which can manifest in actions of counterproductive work behavior[2] and reduce the effectiveness of organizational communication.[3]
Abuse directed toward a subordinate from a supervisor often stems from displaced aggression. In this case, the individual (supervisor) is unwilling to retaliate against the direct source of mistreatment and will therefore abuse a less threatening target such as a subordinate since the subordinate is incapable of retaliation.[4][5] Thus, interactional injustice can essentially trickle-down from the top of an organization to the bottom due to displaced aggression that exists in the top ranks of the hierarchy.
^Aryee, S; Chen, ZX; Sun, LY; Debrah, YA (2007). "Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 92 (1): 191–201. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191. PMID 17227160.
^Serenko, A.; Abubakar, M. (2023). "Antecedents and consequences of knowledge sabotage in the Turkish telecommunication and retail sectors" (PDF). Journal of Knowledge Management. 27 (5): 1409–1435. doi:10.1108/JKM-01-2022-0029.
^Baron, Robert A.; Neuman, Joel H. (1996). "Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes". Aggressive Behavior. 22 (3): 161–173. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:3<161::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-Q.
^"How justice changes in the time of Covid". avvocatomatrimonialista.org. 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2023-04-20.
^Marcus-Newhall, A; Pedersen, WC; Carlson, M; Miller, N (2000). "Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78 (4): 670–89. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.670. PMID 10794373.
This sociology-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
interactional, justice, defined, sociologist, john, schermerhorn, degree, which, people, affected, decision, treated, dignity, respect, organizational, behavior, 2013, theory, focuses, interpersonal, treatment, people, receive, when, procedures, implemented, c. Interactional justice is defined by sociologist John R Schermerhorn as the degree to which the people affected by decision are treated by dignity and respect Organizational Behavior 2013 The theory focuses on the interpersonal treatment people receive when procedures are implemented Contents 1 Classification 2 Within an organization 3 See also 4 ReferencesClassification editInteractional justice a subcomponent of organizational justice has come to be seen as consisting of two specific types of interpersonal treatment e g Greenberg 1990a 1993b The first labeled interpersonal justice reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness dignity and respect by authorities or third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes The second labeled informational justice focuses on the explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion Where more adequacy of explanation is prevalent the perceived level of informational justice is higher Sam Fricchione 2006 Within an organization editIt is important that a high degree of interactional justice exists in a subordinate supervisor relationship in order to reduce the likelihood of counterproductive work behavior If a subordinate perceives that interactional injustice exists then the subordinate will hold feelings of resentment toward either the supervisor or institution and will therefore seek to even the score 1 A victim of interaction injustice will have increased expressions of hostility toward the offender co workers or the entire organization which can manifest in actions of counterproductive work behavior 2 and reduce the effectiveness of organizational communication 3 Abuse directed toward a subordinate from a supervisor often stems from displaced aggression In this case the individual supervisor is unwilling to retaliate against the direct source of mistreatment and will therefore abuse a less threatening target such as a subordinate since the subordinate is incapable of retaliation 4 5 Thus interactional injustice can essentially trickle down from the top of an organization to the bottom due to displaced aggression that exists in the top ranks of the hierarchy See also editDistributive justice Economic justice Organizational justice Procedural justice Service recovery paradox Social interactionReferences edit Aryee S Chen ZX Sun LY Debrah YA 2007 Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision Test of a trickle down model The Journal of Applied Psychology 92 1 191 201 doi 10 1037 0021 9010 92 1 191 PMID 17227160 Serenko A Abubakar M 2023 Antecedents and consequences of knowledge sabotage in the Turkish telecommunication and retail sectors PDF Journal of Knowledge Management 27 5 1409 1435 doi 10 1108 JKM 01 2022 0029 Baron Robert A Neuman Joel H 1996 Workplace violence and workplace aggression Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes Aggressive Behavior 22 3 161 173 doi 10 1002 SICI 1098 2337 1996 22 3 lt 161 AID AB1 gt 3 0 CO 2 Q How justice changes in the time of Covid avvocatomatrimonialista org 2020 07 20 Retrieved 2023 04 20 Marcus Newhall A Pedersen WC Carlson M Miller N 2000 Displaced aggression is alive and well A meta analytic review Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 4 670 89 doi 10 1037 0022 3514 78 4 670 PMID 10794373 nbsp This sociology related article is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Interactional justice amp oldid 1154939627, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
