Both leader-member exchange (LMX) and organizational justice have commanded a great deal of attention in organizational research. Despite this attention, these two research areas are seldom integrated for examination. This dissertation aimed at helping to integrate these two areas and extend them to a higher level of analysis. Two models were developed at the individual- and group-levels of analysis. In the individual-level model, LMX quality was hypothesized to interact with role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE) and two group characteristics — LMX differentiation and intra-group communication — to impact justice perceptions. It was further hypothesized that justice perceptions would mediate the association between LMX quality and various individual outcomes. In the group-level model, it was hypothesized that LMX differentiation would impact justice climate strength in groups which in turn would affect group-level outcomes. Moreover, justice climate strength was hypothesized to impact these group-level outcomes through two group processes — relationship conflict and team-member exchange (TMX). Data collected from 413 members constituting 87 groups in a corps of cadets revealed that LMX quality interacted with RBSE, LMX differentiation, and intra-group communication to affect procedural and interactional justice perceptions. In addition, distributive, procedural, and interactional justice perceptions partially mediated the impact of LMX quality on group members' commitment to the leader, satisfaction with the leader, job performance, and citizenship behaviors to different degrees. When extended to the group-level of analysis, LMX differentiation in groups was found to lower the strength of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice climates in the groups. These weak justice climates promoted more relationship conflict and hindered social exchange among group members. They also dampened group members' commitment to the group, satisfaction with the group, group performance, and citizenship behaviors in the group. Contributions, practical implications, and future directions for research on LMX and organizational justice are discussed. / Ph. D.

The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether the separate contributors to procedural and distributive justice also affected the other form of justice. Previous research investigating these cross over effects of justice contributors had not examined inputs in addition to outcomes and procedures, and had typically assumed outcome level to be equivalent to the equitableness of outcomes. Subjects were 120 undergraduate psychology students. Outcomes, inputs and procedures were manipulated in a laboratory experiment in order to assess their independent and combined effects on distributive and procedural justice perceptions. In contrast to past research, the current study found a weak and inconsistent effect of procedures on distributive justice perceptions. Outcome level had a strong effect on both procedural and distributive justice perceptions. In addition, outcome fairness was found to effect procedural justice perceptions. When procedures were fair, the equitableness of outcomes influenced distributive justice ratings. When procedures were unfair, however, the equitableness of outcomes did not influence distributive justice judgements. Implications for procedural justice conceptualizations, equity theory and organizations are discussed. / Ph. D.

No description available.

Jeremy Waldron est un penseur d’origine néozélandaise s’intéressant aux rapports entre les législatures et les cours de justice. Tout au long de sa carrière, il a publié des articles critiquant la révision judiciaire et défendant la « dignité de la législation. » Ses travaux l’ont amené à s’opposer à H. L. A. Hart, à John Rawls ainsi qu’à Ronald Dworkin, et lui ont attiré de nombreuses critiques, entre autres celles de Richard Stacey et de Cécile Fabre. Sa thèse est qu’en vertu du droit de participation du peuple à la vie politique, ce dernier ne devrait pas être laissé hors de prises de décisions touchant à ses droits. Les cours de justice n’ayant pas de légitimité populaire, elles devraient s’effacer devant la volonté du peuple transmise par la législature. S’appuyant sur des penseurs classiques comme Aristote, Locke et Kant, Waldron démontre le surprenant soutien de ces derniers aux thèses de la sagesse populaire, de la primauté de la législation et de l’obéissance à la loi. Le présent mémoire a pour but d’explorer cette théorie originale et de la confronter à ses critiques. Après avoir, dans le premier chapitre, réuni les éléments nécessaires à une compréhension de l’argument participatif contre la révision judiciaire, nous nous intéresserons, dans le second, à un certain nombre d’arrêts des cours des États-Unis, du Canada et du Royaume-Uni, ce qui nous aidera à mieux saisir comment les juges perçoivent leurs rapports avec les législateurs. Le troisième chapitre sera celui où nous mettrons de l’avant les conséquences pratiques de l’application de la théorie de Waldron, mais aussi les critiques à son égard. Après avoir conclu que les précautions que notre auteur tente de mettre dans la présentation de sa théorie sont mises en échec par ses prémisses mêmes, nous tenterons de la modérer en montrant, grâce aux arguments de Leonid Sirota, comment elle pourrait être compatible avec la révision judiciaire en matière de fédéralisme. / Jeremy Waldron is a thinker of New Zealand origin interested by relations between the legislatures and courts. Throughout his career, he has published articles criticizing judicial review and defending the “dignity of legislation.” His work led him to oppose H. L. A. Hart, John Rawls as well as Ronald Dworkin, and have won him many critics, including those of Richard Stacey and Cécile Fabre. His thesis is that, by virtue of the right of popular participation in political life, it should not be left out of decisions affecting its right. The courts having no popular legitimacy, they should yield to the will of the people transmitted by the legislature. Drawing on classical thinkers like Aristotle, Locke and Kant, Waldron demonstrates the surprising support of these thinkers to the theses of popular wisdom, the primacy of the legislation and law’s obedience. This submission’s intention is to explore this original theory and confront it to its critics. Having, in the first chapter, put together the necessary elements for an understanding of the participatory argument against judicial review, we will consider, in the second chapter, a number of rulings from the USA, Canada and the United Kingdom courts, which will help us to understand how judges perceive their relationship with legislators. The third chapter will be where we will put forward the practical consequences of the application of Waldron’s theory, but also its critics. After concluding that the precautions that our author tries to put in the presentation of his theory are put in check by its very premises, we will try to moderate the resulting theory by showing, through Leonid Sirota’s arguments, how it could be compatible with federalism’ based judicial review.

This study deals with the employee fairness perceptions of their performance management system in a South African organisation. The concept of justice, with particular reference to procedural, distributive and interactional justice, is used as a guide in assessing employee perceptions of fairness of the organisations’ performance management system. A qualitative approach was used to gain an in-depth understanding of employee perceptions of fairness based on their personal experiences of the organisation’s performance management system. Data was obtained through extensive semi structured interviews with 20 employees who had been with the organisation and participated in the performance management system for 5 or more years. All interviews were transcribed and assessed using a thematic analysis. The overall findings show that there are negative fairness perceptions of the performance management system as assessed according to the three organisational justice factors of procedural, distributive and interactional justice. / Industrial and Organisational Psychology) / M.A. (Industrial and Organisational Psychology)

In this thesis I explore an alternative formulation of the circumstances of justice. The circumstances of justice are the circumstances that make human cooperation necessary and possible, and because human cooperation is necessary to justice, they make justice both necessary and possible. For constructivists, principles of justice respond to these circumstances. Standard accounts of the circumstances of justice can be found in Hobbes, Hume, and Rawls, and many contemporary theorists rely on these accounts. My dissertation rejects these standard accounts of the circumstances of justice—on the grounds of exclusion and trust—and defends an alternative account. A core idea of my proposed alternative is that the circumstances of justice must be understood in terms of solidarity. A proper understanding of the role of solidarity in an adequate characterization of the circumstances of justice requires a good grasp of the nature of solidarity itself. To that end I offer a novel account of solidarity which I argue improves existing theories of solidarity. In the first part of this project I explain the role and importance of the circumstances of justice. I then offer a full description of solidarity and its normative character. In the second half of the project I offer my new account of the circumstances of justice, including an explanation and examples of how broad the scope of this reformulation is. I conclude the project by applying my new account of the circumstances of justice to the problem of climate change, and ask whether we can now construe the coordination of resources between generations as a problem of justice.

No description available.

The aim of this thesis is to assess how far trial on indictment in nineteenth century England conformed to -." the present day concept of a fair trial. What by contemporary English standards are considered the essential elements of a fair trial the thesis deduces from current statute and case law. Having identified these elements it attempts to discover how far they were present in the nineteenth century system. The analysis broadly follows the chronology of the trial itself, with particular attention paid to legal aid, the campaign to abolish the rule rendering prisoners and their spouses incompetent as witnesses in their own defence, and appellate remedies. The conclusion reached is that, although at the start of the nineteenth century the trial system fell well short of the twentieth century model, by the century's end it had (except in relation to legal aid and appellate remedies) moved much closer to it. For its analysis of the trial system the research draws upon eighteenth and nineteenth century law texts supplemented by evidence as to trial practice gleaned from contemporary reports of trials (in particular the reports in The Times, the Central Criminal Court Sessions Papers and Legal Journals), legal memoirs and biographies, and unpublished material in the Public " Record Office and elsewhere. The most important single unpublished source consulted has been the notebooks which record the reserved criminal cases which came before the Common Law judges between'*1785 and 1828. Reports of Royal Commissions, and Select Committees, draft Bills and the Reports of Parliamentary Debates (supplemented by articles in newspapers and journals) have provided the raw material upon which the account given of the reforms made and attempted during the century is based.

No description available.

In this dissertation I examine the link between status and perceptions of just rewards. Specifically I focus on how an individual's status-valued attributes shape their perceptions of just rewards, or the amount of a good that they deem fair. According to equity theorists, status-valued attributes constitute one 'input' that shapes perceptions of just rewards, but the precise nature of this relationship has been heretofore unspecified. Drawing from reward expectations theory, which is one of the equity theories, I develop a set of equations to estimate point predictions of just rewards based on individual's status-valued attributes. The model quantifies the commonly held belief that individuals with the more positively evaluated states of status-valued attributes expect to receive relatively more rewards from a distribution of valued goods. The model borrows the quantification of reward expectations states from reward expectations theory, which requires reducing all status differences to two states of relatively high and relatively low. This is an unnecessary simplifying assumption that requires throwing away the relative magnitude of status-valued attributes. In the interest of increasing the precision and realism of the formal model of just rewards, I also extend the mathematics of reward expectations theory to account for status-valued attributes with more than two states (e.g., occupational prestige or education). This extension not only increases the precision of the formal model of just rewards, but is also applicable to all of the expectation states theories, which account for a large body of scholarship and have a broad domain of applicability. To evaluate these ideas I use a variety of quantitative methodologies, including an experiment, a vignette study and the analysis of secondary data from thirteen countries. Across these methods, I find support for both the formal model of just rewards and the procedure for modeling status-valued attributes with more than two states. I conclude the dissertation with the implications of this research and future directions of the project.