Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:21:33.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organisational Justice and Work-Family Policies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

Jarrod Haar ,
Chester S. Spell  and
Michael P. O'Driscoll
Jarrod Haar*
Affiliation:
Department of Strategy and Human Resource Management, University of Waikato, New Zealand
Chester S. Spell
Affiliation:
School of Business, Rutgers University, United States
Michael P. O'Driscoll
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Waikato, New Zealand
*
Department of Strategy and Human Resource Management, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105 Hamilton, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based in a local government organisation in New Zealand, this paper links the literature on work-family balance to the literature on organisational justice, by examining the predictors of perceived fairness in work-family polices. The study also expands an earlier study in Grover (1991), by considering work-family policy sets, rather than single policies only. Perceptions of the fairness in work-family policies were partly predicted, positively, by a combination of management seniority, perceived benefits in work-family policies, and own usage of those policies. These findings suggest the influence of both group values and self-interest. In terms of organisational justice, the findings raise a question for future research, namely how fairness attitudes relate to the sustainability of work-family initiatives.

Type
Articles
Information
South Pacific Journal of Psychology , Volume 16 , 2005 , pp. 30 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © University of Papua New Guinea and Massey University, New Zealand/Aotearoa 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Adams, J. S., & Freeman, S. (1976). Equity theory revisited: Comments and an annotated bibliography. In Berkowitz, L. & Walster, E. (Eds.), Equity Theory: Towards a General Theory of Social Interaction vol 9 (pp. 43–90). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 178–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In Rowland, K. & Ferris, G. R. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 3, pp. 289–316). Greenwich: CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130.Google Scholar
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organisational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organisational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1990). Looking fair versus being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. In Straw, B. M. & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour (Vol. 12, pp. 111–157). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Grover, S. L. (1991). Predicting the perceived fairness of parental leave policies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organisational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, M. J., & Whitehead, L. A. (1980). Procedural justice viewed in the context of motive theory. In Mikula, G. (Ed.), Contemporary Topics in Social Psychology (pp. 219–256). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lobel, S. A., Googins, B. K., & Bankert, E. (1999). The future of work and family: Critical trends for policy, practice, and research. Human Resource Management, 38(3), 243–254.3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterman, P. (1995). Work/family programmes and the employment relationship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 681–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothausen, T. J., Gonzalez, J. A., Clarke, N. E., & O'Dell, L. L. (1998). Family-friendly backlash-fact or fiction? The case of organisations' on-site childcare centres. Personnel Psychology, 51, 685–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabbagh, C., Yechezkel, D., & Nura, R. (1994). The structure of social justice judgments: A facet approach. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sashkin, M., & Williams, R. L. (1990). Does fairness make a difference? Organizational Dynamics, 9, 56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenbrunsel, A. E., Brett, J. M., Maoz, E., Stroh, L. K., & Reilly, A. H. (1995). Dynamic and static work-family relationships. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 63(3), 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar