Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu

Uysal Doruk IRAK (MAN Türkiye AŞ., Ankara, Türkiye)
Türk Psikoloji Yazıları
166 53
Yıl: 2004 Cilt: 7 Sayı: 13 Sayfa Aralığı: 25 - 43 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu

Öz:
Endüstri ve örgüt psikolojisi alanında incelenen örgütsel adalet, çalışanların işyerlerinde kendilerine ne kadar adil davranıldığma ilişkin değerlendirmelerini içerir. Önceleri çalışanların yalnız elde ettikleri sonuçlara ilişkin değerlendirmeleri örgütsel adalet olarak düşünülürken, daha sonra kullanılan yöntemlerin ve kişilerarası davranışların adil olmasının da önemli olduğu bulunmuştur. Örgütsel adaletin temelde olduğu düşünülen yönleri sırasıyla bölüşümsel, işlemsel ve etkileşimsel adalettir. Araştırmacılar, bu yönleri farklı kuramsal yaklaşımlarla incelemişlerdir. Yapılan çalışmalarda örgütsel adaletin iş doyumu, örgütsel bağlanma, örgütsel yurttaşlık, güven duyma, işyerinde görülen olumsuz davranışlar, iş performansı ve bunun gibi pek çok iş davranışıyla ilişkisi olduğu bulunmuştur. Bu sonuçlar, çalışanların iş davranışlarının daha iyi anlaşılabilmesi için örgütsel adalet kavramının anlaşılmasının da önemli olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu makalede de örgütsel adaletin ortaya çıkışı ve kuramsal yaklaşımlar bağlamında gelişimi anlatılmaktadır. Örgütsel adaletin farklı yönleri ele alınmakta ve bu konuda yapılan araştırmalar incelenmektedir. Bu makalenin amacı örgütsel adalet konusunun tarihsel olarak gelişimini incelemek ve bu konuda yapılacak yeni çalışmalar için bir bakış açısı oluşturmaya çalışmaktır.
Anahtar Kelime: bölüşümsel adalet sosyal psikoloji etkileşimsel adalet hakçalık kültürlerarası çalışmalar kişilerarası ilişkiler işlemsel adalet örgütsel adalet örgütsel psikoloji performans değerlendirme performans yönetimi iş ortamı

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Derleme Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L.Bergowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 269-299). New York: Academic Press
  • Alexander, S., & Ruderman M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1,177-198.
  • Barling, J., & Philips, M. (1993). Interactional, formal and distirbutive justice in the workplace: An explanatory study. Journal of Psychology, 127, 649-656.
  • Beugre, C., & Baron R. (2001). Perceptions of systemic justice: The effects of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 324-339.
  • Bies, R. (1986). Identifying principles of interactional justice: The case of corporate recruitmenting. Paper presented at the national Academy of Management Meetings, Chicago, August 13-16.
  • Bies, R. (2001). Organizational injustice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89-1189). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Bies, R., & Moag, J.S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria for fairness. In B. Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43-59). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Bies, R., & Shapiro, D.L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1,199-218.
  • Bies, R., & Shapiro, D.L. (1988).Voice and justification: Their influences on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 676-685,
  • Blader, S.L., Chang, C.C., & Tyler, T.R. (2001). Procedural justice and retaliation in organizations: Comparing across nationally the importance of fair group processes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), 295-311.
  • Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the millennium :A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
  • Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice : Tunneling through the maze. In C. L. Cooper, & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (12, pp. 317-372). London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Cropanzano, R., & Randall, M. (1993). Injustice and work behavior: A historical review. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fainess in human resources management (pp. 3-20). New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z.S., Bobocel, D.C., & Rupp, D.R. (2001) . Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209.
  • Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83(2), 85-113.
  • Elovainio, M., Kiwimaki, M., & Helkama, K. (2001), Organizational justice evaluationsjob control and occupational strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, S6(3),418-424.
  • Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In H.W. Beirhoff, R.L. Cohen & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 145-162). New York: Plenum Press.
  • Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resources management. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
  • Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R.Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1-55). Stanford, CA:Stanford Univ. Press.
  • Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personal systems. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 3, pp. 141-183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Folger, R., & Konovsky, M.A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice of reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
  • Fulk, J., Brief, A.P., & Barr, S.H. (1985). Trust- in-supervisor and perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 13, 299-313.
  • Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175-208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Greenberg, J. (1986a). The distributive justice of organizational performance evaluations. In H.W. Bierhoff, R.L. Cohen & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 337-351). New York:Plenum.
  • Greenberg, J. (1986b). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2),340-342.
  • Greenberg, J. (1987a). A taxonmy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-22.
  • Greenberg, J. (1987b). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61.
  • Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status : A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 606-613.
  • Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice : Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management. 16 (2), 399-432.
  • Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79-103). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Greenberg, J., & Ornstein, S. (1983). High status job titles as compensation for underpayment :A test of equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 285-296.
  • Greenberg J., & Scott, K.S. (1996). Why do workers bite the hand that feeds them ? Employee theft as a social exchange process. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research on organizational behavior (Vol.18, pp. 111-156). Greenwich, CT :JAI Press.
  • Gudykunst,W., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
  • Hartman, S.,Yrle, A., & Galle Jr., W. (1999). Procedural and distributive justice examining equity in a university setting. Journal of Business Ethics, 20, 337-351.
  • Huo, Y.J., Smith, H.J., Tyler, T.R., & Lind, E.A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification and justice concerns. Psychological Science, 7, 40-45.
  • James, K. (1993). The Social context of organizational justice : Cultural, intergroup and structural effects on justice behaviors and perceptions. In R.Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace :Approaching fairness in human resources management (pp. 21-50). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Leventhal, G.S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory ? In K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg & R.H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange : Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York :Plenum Press.
  • Lind, A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgements as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Lind, A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The Social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
  • Martin, J. (1981). Relative deprivation: A theory of distributive injustice for an era of shrinking resources. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 53-107). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Masterson, S., Lewis, S.K., Goldman, B.M., & Taylor, M.S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment of work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.
  • Messick, D.M., Bloom, S., Boldizar, J.P., & Samuelson, C.D. (1985). Why we are fairer than others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 480-500.
  • Mikula, G., Petri, B., & Tanzer, N. (1990). What people regard as unjust: Types and structures of everyday experiences of injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 133-149.
  • Moorman, R. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-855.
  • Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C., & Williams, E.S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two sample study. Journal of Management, 25, 897-933.
  • Pillai, R., Williams, E.S., & Tan, J. (2001). Are the scales tipped in favor of procedural or distributive justice? An investigation of the U.S., India, Germany and China. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), 312-332.
  • Rahim, M.A., Magner, N.R., Antonioni, D., & Rahman, S. (2001), Do justice relationships with organization-directed reactions differ across U.S. and Bangladesh employees? International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), 333-340.
  • Sheppard, B.H., & Lewicki, R.J. (1987). Toward general principles of managerial fairness. Social Justice Research, 1,161-176.
  • Skarlicki, P.O., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, S2(3), 434-443.
  • Skarlicki, P.O., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100-108.
  • Stouffer, S.A., Suchman, E.A., DeVinney, L. C. Star, S.A. & Williams, R.M., Jr. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment during army life (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Taylor, M.S. (2001). Reflections on fairness: Continuing the progression of justice research and practice. Journal of. Vocational Behavior, 38, 243-253.
  • Taylor, D.M., Moghaddam, P.M. Gamble, I., & Zellerer, E. (1987). Disadvantages of group responses to perceived inequity: From passive acceptance to collective action. Journal of Social Psychology, 127,259-212.
  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830-838.
  • Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas : Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,482-497.
  • Tyler, T.R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H.J. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913-930. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ankara: H.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • Van Den Bos, K. (2001). Fundamental research by means of laboratory experiments is essential for a better understanding of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 254-259.
  • Van Den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (1), 95-104.
  • Van Den Bos, K., Wilke, H., & Lind, E.A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1493-1503.
  • Tyler, T.R., &. Lind, E.A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, 115-191). San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Uysal, D. (2002). Örgütlerde kişilerarası adil davranış algısı ile çatışma iletişim tarzı arasındaki ilişki. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ankara:HÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • Weiss, H.M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete Emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 786-794.
  • Wosinska, W. (1987). Stress in the hospital setting and injustice experienced by medical staff. Poh'sh Psychological Bulletin, 18, 177-186.
APA IRAK U (2004). Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu. , 25 - 43.
Chicago IRAK Uysal Doruk Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu. (2004): 25 - 43.
MLA IRAK Uysal Doruk Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu. , 2004, ss.25 - 43.
AMA IRAK U Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu. . 2004; 25 - 43.
Vancouver IRAK U Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu. . 2004; 25 - 43.
IEEE IRAK U "Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu." , ss.25 - 43, 2004.
ISNAD IRAK, Uysal Doruk. "Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu". (2004), 25-43.
APA IRAK U (2004). Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 7(13), 25 - 43.
Chicago IRAK Uysal Doruk Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları 7, no.13 (2004): 25 - 43.
MLA IRAK Uysal Doruk Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, vol.7, no.13, 2004, ss.25 - 43.
AMA IRAK U Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları. 2004; 7(13): 25 - 43.
Vancouver IRAK U Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları. 2004; 7(13): 25 - 43.
IEEE IRAK U "Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu." Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 7, ss.25 - 43, 2004.
ISNAD IRAK, Uysal Doruk. "Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Bugünkü Durumu". Türk Psikoloji Yazıları 7/13 (2004), 25-43.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
22-04-2024 8:30

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları