Assessing the Six-Factor Model of Organizational Justice in the Context of Workplace Mediation

• Author: Jessica Katz Jameson,Dennis M. Daley,RaJade M. Berry-James,Jerrell D. Coggburn
• Date: 01 September 2020
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X18816758
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18816758

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2020, Vol. 40(3) 355 –383

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X18816758

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Assessing the Six-Factor

Model of Organizational

Justice in the Context of

Workplace Mediation

Jerrell D. Coggburn1, Dennis M. Daley1,

Jessica Katz Jameson1, and RaJade M. Berry-James1

Abstract

Applying the six-factor model of organizational justice, this study examines the

relationship between disputants’ (i.e., grievants and respondents) perceptions of

organizational justice and satisfaction with workplace mediation. Using secondary

data, collected postmediation from participants in the (former) North Carolina

Department of Correction’s (DOC) mediation process, the findings show that

perceptions of organizational justice and mediation satisfaction are high for both

grievants and, especially, respondents. Logistic regression results find statistically

significant relationships between mediation satisfaction and three factors of

organizational justice—distributive justice, procedural justice–process, and disputant–

disputant interpersonal justice—as well as unexpected results for procedural justice–

mediator and disputant–mediator interpersonal justice.

Keywords

workplace mediation, organizational justice, alternative dispute resolution, civil

service reform, grievances, discipline

Introduction

Organizational justice is concerned with fairness. It is “fundamentally about how

employees construct meaning around their treatment in the workplace—whether they

perceive themselves to have been treated fairly and how this perception impacts the

nature of the employment relationship” (Sowa, 2016, p. 228). Employees’ perceptions

1North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jerrell D. Coggburn, Department of Public Administration, School of Public and International Affairs,

North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8102, Raleigh, NC 27695-8102, USA.

Email: jcoggburn@ncsu.edu

816758ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X18816758Review of Public Personnel AdministrationCoggburn et al.

research-article2018

356 Review of Public Personnel Administration 40(3)

about how their organization treats them have important effects on attitudes, behaviors

and, in turn, organizational outcomes. Employee discipline and grievance systems rep-

resent critical arenas for shaping perceptions and ensuring the provision of organiza-

tional justice (Folger & Greenberg, 1985; Fryxell & Gordon, 1989).

In the public sector, substantive and procedural due process protections are built

into grievance and discipline systems. Grounded in constitutional and administrative

law (Hassan, 2013; Rubin, 2009) and reflecting an underlying bureaucratic paradigm

(Moynihan & Ingraham, 2012), these systems shape collective views of organiza-

tional justice through individual cases (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng,

2001). Grievances are employee initiated and entail allegations that the employer

failed to adhere to organizational objectives and procedures. Such allegations are

often related to the denial of a work-related benefit (e.g., pay, promotion, job assign-

ment). Discipline is employer initiated, with the employer (manager or supervisor)

claiming that the employee broke a rule or did not follow appropriate procedures for

achieving the organization’s objectives (Haraway, 2005; Posthuma, 2003). It entails

the imposition of a penalty, which in a progressive discipline system may lead to

or—depending on the severity of the offense—result in employee demotion or dis-

missal. The perception of fairness is particularly important given the seriousness of

these disciplinary consequences.

Organizational justice is a salient issue in light of ongoing developments in the field

of public human resource management. Traditional, merit-based civil service systems

that promote politically neutral competence and professionalism and protect public

servants from political interference and abuse are increasingly under siege (Brewer &

Walker, 2013; Kearney & Coggburn, 2016; Selden, 2006). Over roughly the last 25

years, civil service reform at the local, state, and federal levels has altered the status of

public employees and the public employer–employee relationship (Coggburn et al.,

2010; Condrey & Battaglio, 2007; Hays & Sowa, 2006; Kearney & Coggburn, 2016;

Light, 2006). Merit-based systems are often criticized as cumbersome, inflexible, inef-

ficient, unresponsive (i.e., to political/executive control and citizens), and outdated,

hence civil service reform has targeted procedural safeguards, especially those embod-

ied in employee discipline and grievance systems.1 As Rubin (2009, p. 129) noted,

Disciplinary, appeal, and termination procedures are arguably the most rule-bound of

government personnel management rules. The rules require documentation, opportunities

for improvement, and opportunities for hearings. It is claimed that such requirements

create a disincentive for managers to discipline an employee or begin termination

proceedings.

In some settings, employees’ procedural protections have been substantially reduced

or, with employment at will, eliminated (Coggburn, 2006; Coggburn et al., 2010; Hays

& Sowa, 2006). This is a problematic trend given the potential harm done to employ-

ees and their innate expectations of organizational justice (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan,

2004; Daley, 2007; Rubin, 2009; Rubin & Kellough, 2012; Sowa, 2016).