Why have we not detected gender differences in organizational justice perceptions?! An evidenced‐based argument for increasing inclusivity within justice research

Author:

Strah Nicole1,Rupp Deborah E.2ORCID,Shao Ruodan3ORCID,King Eden4,Skarlicki Daniel5

Affiliation:

1. University of North Carolina at Charlotte Charlotte North Carolina USA

2. George Mason University Fairfax Virginia USA

3. Schulich School of Business York University Toronto Ontario Canada

4. Department of Psychology Rice University Houston Texas USA

5. Sauder School of Business The University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada

Abstract

SummaryWhile research from various disciplines shows that women continue to disproportionately face workplace injustices compared to men, OB research has not found meaningful gender differences in self‐reported workplace justice perceptions. This paradox has received little attention in the otherwise well‐established organizational justice literature. We applied an abductive approach to investigate this paradox by a) confirming its existence, and b) proposing and empirically evaluating seven possible explanations for its existence, using multiple methods and seven distinct datasets. We found that this paradox is unlikely to be explained by measurement invariance, different expectations for treatment, whether the context is male‐dominated, differences across years, or differences in how justice perceptions are formed. We did find, however, that when using alternate measurement approaches, women recalled gender‐based injustice experiences, reported them as having occurred more frequently than did men, and reported them as having been negatively impactful on their lives/careers. We conclude that the most promising explanation for this paradox is that extant organizational justice measures are deficient for the purpose of capturing variance accountable to gender‐based injustice. This highlights the need for more inclusive approaches for the measurement and application of organizational justice, especially when studying the relationship between gender and organizational justice.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3