BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

There are several important variables that should be considered because they may influence the proposed relationships among types of distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice and the HR dimensions. These variables include environmental uncertainty, culture, differences in job type, and the temporal relationship between HR dimensions discussed.

Existing literature suggests that, in times of environmental uncertainty, existing norms related to the use of facets of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice may be unsettled: in stable conditions, well-established groups may show a rather monolithicview of justice, but that these groups, in times of uncertainty, may view facets of justice very differently (Folger et al., 1995). More concretely, under good economic conditions, layoffs will be minimal and employees may all agree that deciding who to lay off (i.e., layoff victims) based on performance (equity) constitutes a fair decision process. Alternatively, under poor economic conditions, many more layoffs are likely to occur. If this is the case, employees with better performance records may still feel performance (equity) is a fair decision tool; however, those with moderate to poor performance records may prefer retaining employees who have more seniority or based on need.

Culture may also alter proposed justice aspect–HR dimension relationships. For example, the extent to which a culture is individualistic vs. col- lectivistic may change the extent to which individuals view distributive aspects of equity and equality as fair. Predictions made in this chapter should be made with caution in non-individualistic cultures. For example, cross-culturally, equality in collectivist cultures is found to be more common (Miles & Greenberg, 1993), suggesting that equality in these cultures may also be perceived as fairer. Therefore, even though we have suggested that equitable distribution of pay is generally perceived as fairer, in collectivist cultures equal distribution of pay will probably be seen as equally, if not more fair.

Differences in job types are also expected to alter the importance of justice aspects. Most likely, this is because employees in different job types are likely

168 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 to hold different expectations about justice aspects. For example, white-

collar employees may expect severance packages to be given based on equity, whereas factory workers (especially those that are unionized) may expect severance to be allocated equally among those laid off. If this is the case, the white-collar workers will perceive equity allocations as fairer than equality allocations, but the factory workers will perceive equality allocations as fairer than equity allocations.

Finally, it is possible that justice in some HR policies is predictive of perceived justice in others. As Greenberg (1986a) notes, performance appraisal may be viewed as an end in itself or as a step toward gaining a promotion or pay raise. Greenberg terms the difference between performance appraisal that leads to another outcome a penultimate outcome, and performance appraisal that is an end state itself an ultimate outcome. This differentiation is also possible for other HR dimensions. For example, Gilliland and Schepers (2003) suggest that pay, benefits, work schedule, and performance appraisal reactions may be predictive of layoff reactions. When viewed in this fashion, these HR dimensions are penultimate outcomes leading to layoffs. However, it is also possible to view pay, benefits, work schedule, and performance appraisal as ultimate outcomes. Further work is required to fully understand this temporal relation between HR dimensions and how the terminality of individuals’ evaluations of the dimensions influences their fairness judgements of the dimensions.

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS