The Effects Of Justice And Cooperation On Team Effectiveness

This study investigates the relation between two distributive justice rules (equity and equality) and team effectiveness, and the relation between procedural justice (PJ) and team effectiveness. The extent to which cooperation mediates these relations is examined. Results from 132 teams working on an interdependent task indicate that teams operating under equality rules were more cooperative, which led to fewer errors and better quality. Results also indicate that teams exposed to higher PJ were more cooperative. The increased cooperation in teams exposed to higher PJ led to better quality and higher ratings of team viability; these effects occurred regardless of whether an equity rule or an equality rule was used to allocate rewards. Areas for future research and implications for team rewards are discussed.

[1]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow , 1990 .

[2]  Carol T. Kulik,et al.  Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. , 1993 .

[3]  T. Mitchell,et al.  Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent: Effects on task strategies and performance. , 1990 .

[4]  M. Hoegl,et al.  Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects , 2001 .

[5]  R. Mauborgne,et al.  Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top management compliance with multinationals' corporate strategic decisions. , 1993 .

[6]  M. Petty,et al.  Team-Member Exchange Under Team and Traditional Management , 1995 .

[7]  J. Colquitt.  On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[8]  W. Edwards Deming,et al.  Out of the Crisis , 1982 .

[9]  Kipling D. Williams,et al.  Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes Social Loafing: a Meta-analytic Review and Theoretical Integration , 2022 .

[10]  Robert H. Moorman,et al.  Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors : do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship ? , 1991 .

[11]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement , 2000 .

[12]  R. Bies.  Interactional justice : communication criteria of fairness , 1986 .

[13]  Warren E. Watson,et al.  Member competence, group interaction, and group decision making: A longitudinal study. , 1991 .

[14]  George P. Baker,et al.  Incentives and cooperation: the joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance , 1997 .

[15]  R. Folger,et al.  When Colleagues Become Violent: Employee Threats And Assaults As A Function Of Societal Violence And Organizational Injustice. , 1998 .

[16]  J. Greenberg,et al.  The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. , 1993 .

[17]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Why do workers bite the hands that feed them? Employee theft as a social exchange process. , 1996 .

[18]  Robert H. Moorman,et al.  Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice , 1993 .

[19]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[20]  R. Bies,et al.  Social Accounts in Conflict Situations: Using Explanations to Manage Conflict , 1993 .

[21]  M. Audrey Korsgaard,et al.  Procedural justice in entrepreneur-investor relations , 1996 .

[22]  L. James.  Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual Agreement. , 1982 .

[23]  LI Zhu-jun,et al.  On Procedural Justice , 2001 .

[24]  Milton E. Rosenbaum,et al.  Group Productivity and Process: Pure and Mixed Reward Structures and Task Interdependence. , 1980 .

[25]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK TEAM CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: A REPLICATION AND EXTENSION , 1996 .

[26]  D. L. Gladstein.  Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. , 1984 .

[27]  T. Tyler,et al.  Why People Obey the Law , 2021 .

[28]  R. Wageman.  Interdependence and Group Effectiveness , 1995 .

[29]  Robert L. Hamblin,et al.  Interdependence, differential rewarding, and productivity. , 1963 .

[30]  L. James,et al.  rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. , 1993 .

[31]  Karen S. Cook,et al.  Distributive Justice: A Social-Psychological Perspective. , 1986 .

[32]  N. Kerr.  Motivation losses in small groups: a social dilemma analysis , 1983 .

[33]  J. S. Adams,et al.  Inequity In Social Exchange , 1965 .

[34]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency , 2024, Psihologìâ ì suspìlʹstvo.

[35]  Nathan Bennett,et al.  A Case for Procedural Justice Climate: Development and Test of a Multilevel Model. , 2000 .

[36]  J. Cotton,et al.  Meta-analyses and the effects of various reward systems: Some different conclusions from Johnson et al. , 1982 .

[37]  M. Konovsky.  Understanding Procedural Justice and Its Impact on Business Organizations , 2000 .

[38]  G. Leventhal,et al.  The Distribution of Rewards and Resources in Groups and Organizations , 1976 .

[39]  M. Deutsch.  Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used as the Basis of Distributive Justice? , 1975 .

[40]  Dean Tjosvold,et al.  The Dynamics of Interdependence in Organizations , 1986 .

[41]  J. Hackman,et al.  The design of work teams , 1987 .

[42]  R. Renn.  Participation's effect on task performance: Mediating roles of goal acceptance and procedural justice , 1998 .

[43]  Jennifer M. George,et al.  Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. , 1990 .

[44]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluations , 1986 .

[45]  Donald E. Conlon,et al.  Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.