Abstract Most enterprises acknowledge that technology and experience accumulated by the employees are the most important assets. In order to make regular employees dedicate their efforts on work, reduce employees¡¦ turnover, and enhance their motivations as well as hard-work attitudes, it¡¦s popular for the corporate to assess the job satisfaction of the employees¡¦. According to the equity theory, the corporate employees would be frustrated and maybe reduce their satisfactions on jobs in case they aware of unfair treatment from the organization, no matter what is caused by the distribution or the procedure. Also, incentive pay and benefits system in salary management could motivate and enhance employee¡¦s morale, and moreover help strengthen the overall competitiveness of organizations. Are all of the above mentioned dimensions there significant influences on the job satisfaction? A number of documents reveal confusion regarding relationships among constructs of pay and benefits satisfaction and distributive and procedural justice. The purpose of this study is to measure and verify the relevance among them, and to further clarify the differential effects resulted from these dimensions on the job satisfaction. The study was conducted in a large Taiwan company and carried out via the questionnaire approach as well as SPSS analysis to show the differential effect of the four dimensions- procedural justice, distributive justice, pay satisfaction, and benefits satisfaction, distributive justice, and procedural justice- on job satisfaction. Results showed some important findings as below: 1. Procedural/ distributive justice and pay/ benefits satisfaction are significantly associated with each other. Particularly distributive justice plays more positive effect on pay than procedural one; however, procedural justice does more positive effect on benefits than distributive one. 2. There are positive relationships between both procedural/ distributive justice with job satisfaction. So are both pay/ benefits satisfaction with job satisfaction. It implies that raising the procedural/ distributive justice through improving the system of an organization to increase the job satisfaction of the employees¡¦ is another good way except improving pay/ benefits for the employees. 3. Each of procedural / distributive justice and pay/ benefits satisfaction influences job satisfaction positively. The priority of the effect extent is distributive justice most, procedural justice the second, pay the third, and benefits the last. 4. If we assess the effects of the four dimensions together-procedural justice/ distributive justice/ pay/ benefits satisfaction on job satisfaction, the result shows that distributive justice is with the maximum effect, followed by pay satisfaction, and then followed procedural justice, and benefits satisfaction the minimum. Therefore as the study results showed, if the enterprises attempt to retain talent, reduce employee turnover, and further expect employees to perform better and to take more responsibilities, they can motivate employees with procedural justice and distributive one to achieve organizational goals in addition to with pay and benefits system. specially when some business units in a firm hire outsourced workers in future and then the phenomenon of unequal pay for equal work happens under the situation that the pay system could not be adjusted, it may be a solution for the corporate that it reinforces the "justice" in the system by enhancing the potential of employees perceptual experience to retain high ¡Vquality employees as well as to maintain good efficiency.

Thesis (D. Jur.)--York University, 2000. / "Graduate Programme in Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University." Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNQ67940.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2001. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 367-387).

Thesis (M.Phil.)--Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 119-123). Also available in electronic version. Access restricted to campus users.

As the timeframe of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is running out this year, the Post-2015 Development Agenda soon arrive at its final negotiations. Criticisms of the MDGs have primarily concerned the inaccurate implementation of social justice to the most vulnerable and poor, and the limited understanding of the underlying interconnectedness of the goals. In several recent reports, it has been stated that the various aspects of social justice and inclusiveness shall permeate the new development agenda. I have therefore made it my task to conduct a content analysis of three key reports, providing the most likely basis for the new agenda. With this, my aim is to examine what different concepts of social justice is being expressed, whom the agenda foremost seems to favour in terms of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’, and what possible implications this could have for global development work. My analytical framework is constructed from three concepts of social justice: distributive, retributive and transformative justice. Ideal types of these three concepts have been constructed as the analytical instrument of the study, in order to simplify the content analysis.      In the study, it is concluded that it is likely that the new development agenda will aim for distributive justice, although the road to get there leads through major transformational shifts. The structural and societal causes (transformative injustice) of inequalities, poverty and unsustainability are targeted to finally achieve universal equality (distributive justice). The most marginalized, vulnerable and poor can thus been classified as the utmost winners of the suggested new agenda. Moreover, vague expressions of retributive justice were found regarding foremost climate justice. The possible implications of this could prove to be a more welcoming attitude towards the agenda negotiations, albeit on the cost of decreased accountability.

published_or_final_version / Politics and Public Administration / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

Several recent chapters (Gilliland & Schepers, 2003; Skarlicki & Folger, 2001) have focused on an interesting question: If certain behaviors are perceived as fair or unfair, what antecedents lead to these fair or unfair behaviors? Gilliland and Schepers identify multiple antecedents, including organizational norms. This research examines how norms promote fair or unfair procedural behavior as defined by procedural fairness rules (ref. Leventhal, 1980). Drawing on recent social psychological work on norms by Cialdini and colleagues (for a review see Cialdini & Trost, 1998), the current research distinguishes between two norm elements: descriptive norms (i.e., what others actually are doing) and injunctive norms (i.e., what others believe an individual should be doing). A computerized performance allocation decision task was created to assess individuals' actual behavior in two studies. In each study participants were given normative information and then asked to complete four blocks of the allocation task. From computer-recorded data, measures of behavioral fairness were derived and a post-task survey elicited participants' self-perceived fairness: Both sets of fairness measures were used as dependent variables.Study 1 focused on descriptive norms and tested a prediction derived from Cialdini et al.'s (1990) work on norm salience theory: This theory suggests that the more salient a norm is, the greater an impact it will have. Study 2 also included descriptive norm element conditions, but focused too on the individual who was the source of the injunctive norm. Overall, results of these studies suggest that, at least for behavioral accuracy, norms do impact individuals' fair behavior. However, analyses of behavior and self-perception measures of fairness suggest that further refinement of behavioral measures and more research on the intersection of fairness and norms are required.

The modern principle of freedom of subjectivity sets a moral standard which radically departs from Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean: modern moral agents, exemplified by the rising middle class, are granted the right to develop extreme dispositions towards goods like honour and wealth. Given that Aristotle considers such goods divisible in the sense that when one person gets more another gets less―the basic definition of distributive injustice―it isn’t surprising that modern philosophers like Kant have trouble reconciling this right with duty to others. Failing to resolve this dilemma satisfactorily in ethical terms, Kant and others turn to aesthetics, but Kant, at least, takes no account there of moral agents’ interest in the actual existence of goods. In this respect, the alternative to the Kantian aesthetic response I document in my dissertation is more Stoic than modern. This response, the modern mediocre-artist narrative, features a mediocre artist who fails to achieve the new standard of distributive justice and a genius who ostensibly succeeds. Though other critics discuss the ethical dimension of mediocre-artist narratives, they don’t consider the possibility that the mediocre artist’s failure might be due to the ethical dilemma just described. They therefore tend to uphold uncritically the narratives’ negative judgments of mediocrity, ascribing the latter’s failure to egotism. By contrast, I examine the genius’ artistic efforts for evidence of a similar failure. Ultimately, I demonstrate that the genius does indeed fail, albeit less spectacularly, arguing on this basis that egotistical characterizations of mediocrity are unjust. But the mediocre aren’t the only victims: in “concealing” genius’ failure, mediocre-artist narratives ignore unmet claims on its fruits. Finally, I invoke Derrida’s notion of the “lesser violence” to outline a new genre that recognizes the unattainability of the modern standard of justice. I call this genre morally progressive, rejecting Jürgen Habermas’ view that freedom of subjectivity has hit a dead end, and that we must backtrack to a philosophical turning indicated but not taken by Hegel, namely, the path of intersubjective freedom.

Thèse (M.A.)--Université Laval, 2007. / Bibliogr.: f. 152-161. Publié aussi en version électronique dans la Collection Mémoires et thèses électroniques.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Western Australia, 2007.