“Reluctant stayers do not get what they want”: the relationship between procedural injustice and workplace incivility

PurposeResearch has explored the behavioural responses of reluctant stayers to various organisational perceptions. This study extends current research to explain how employees who perceive procedural injustice respond, when they intend to leave but are unable to, due to limited job alternatives. This study postulates that employees who perceive procedural injustice are more likely to develop turnover intentions. Procedural injustice is expected to indirectly influence workplace incivility, with turnover intentions as the mediator. Further, the availability of job alternatives is expected to moderate the relationship between turnover intentions and workplace incivility, to form a moderated-mediation model.Design/methodology/approachData was collected from 204 retail employees across five major shopping malls within the Caribbean nation of Trinidad, using a two-wave research design. A path-analytic approach was used to test the research hypotheses.FindingsThe findings provided support for the propositions that procedural injustice predicts turnover intentions, that turnover intentions mediate the procedural injustice – workplace incivility relationship, and that the availability of job alternatives moderate the relationship between turnover intentions and workplace incivility.Originality/valueThis study addresses a clear research gap since no study has examined how employees' perceptions of procedural injustice affect their behaviour when they intend to leave but are unable to, due to limited job alternatives. This study extends research on the behaviour of reluctant stayers.

Do Employees Snooze or Strike Back to Injustice?

This study aims to investigate the relationship between the perceptions of injustice and revengeful intentions among first- person (revengeful intention by the victim), second-person (revengeful intention for the sake of a close friend), and third- person (revengeful intention for the sake of an acquaintance). A questionnaire survey was used to collect data from 154 respondents. The findings showed that interactional injustice is associated positively with first-person revenge, whereas distributive and procedural injustice lead to second-person and third-person revengeful intentions. This study offers important insights about the broader impact of injustice which goes beyond the victim and explains how it ignites negative feelings among the non-victim as well.

Impact of employee perceptions of mistreatment on organizational performance in the hotel industry

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the impact of injustice, discrimination and incivility on organizational performance in the hotel industry. In addition to this, the study also investigates the mediating effects of discrimination and incivility between distributive injustice, procedural injustice and organizational performance. Design/methodology/approach A survey was conducted to collect the data from hotel industry employees on a structured questionnaire by using convenience sampling approach. PLS-SEM was used to analyze the useable data of 285 respondents. In addition to this, to evaluate the predictive performance of exogenous constructs newly suggested hold out sample approach in PLS-SEM was also considered. Findings Results indicate that incivility and procedural injustice has a negative and significant effect on organizational performance, while the impact of distributive injustice and discrimination on organizational performance was insignificant. Further, incivility was found to be a significant mediator, while mediation of discrimination was not supported between distributive injustice, procedural injustice and organizational performance. Practical implications Findings are important for hotel managers to adjust their strategies to improve organizational performance. Originality/value This study contributes in existing literature by concentrating on predictors that undermine the organizational performance. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the early studies to contribute in literature by investigating the impact of injustice perceptions on employee perceptions specifically perceived incivility and perceived discrimination on organizational performance. Further, it also investigated the mediating impact of perceived incivility and perceived discrimination between injustice perceptions and organizational performance. Such considerations have implications for researchers, students and practitioners. For researchers, this study helps to ponder on an alternative approach by considering those factors which may undermine organizational performance, instead of focusing only on those factors which enhance organizational performance. For research students, such contribution will bring a new avenue to consider further research. Managers will find help to control such factors which minimize organizational performance.

The Strain From Procedural Injustice on Parolees: Bridging Procedural Justice Theory and General Strain Theory

The procedural justice literature explains why people obey the law. However, prior research has largely neglected the implication of procedural justice in the correctional context in general and in parole efficacy in particular. In an attempt to bridge the propositions of procedural justice and general strain theory, this study assesses the effect of parolees’ perceived procedural injustice on their success in reentry. Using data from a longitudinal study of prisoner reentry, we investigate the nexus of procedural injustice, negative emotions, family bonds, and postrelease criminal propensity. Findings indicate that procedural injustice increases criminal propensity, and the negative emotion of depression partially mediates this relationship. We also find parolees’ family bonds totally mediate the effect of procedural injustice on criminal propensity.

Against Capital Punishment

Against Capital Punishment offers an innovative proceduralist argument against the death penalty. Worries about procedural injustice animate many popular and scholarly objections to capital punishment. Philosophers and legal theorists are attracted to procedural abolitionism because it sidesteps controversies over whether murderers deserve death, holding out a promise of gaining rational purchase among death penalty retentionists. Following in this path, the book remains agnostic on the substantive immorality of execution; in fact, it takes pains to reconstruct the best arguments for capital punishment and presumes the appropriateness of execution in limited cases. At the same time, the book contends that the possibility of irrevocable mistakes precludes the just administration of the death penalty. The heart of Against Capital Punishment is a philosophical defense of the well-known irrevocability argument, which analyzes the argument’s premises, establishes their validity, and vindicates them against objections. The central claim is that execution violates the principle of remedy, which requires legal institutions to remedy their mistakes and to compensate those who suffer from wrongful sanctions. The death penalty is repellent to the principle of remedy by dint of its irrevocability. The incompatibility of remedy and execution is the crux of the irrevocability argument: because the wrongly executed cannot enjoy the obligatory remedial measures, execution is impermissible. Against Capital Punishment also reveals itself to be free from two serious defects plaguing other versions of proceduralism: the retributivist challenge and the problem of controversial consequences.