What is it about?
This study examines whether organizational injustice should be treated as a concept distinct from organizational justice, rather than merely the absence of fairness. Using large samples of Kuwaiti employees and a follow-up design, the research demonstrates that justice and injustice load on separate but related factors and that injustice uniquely predicts prevention-focused outcomes, such as employee distraction, hostility, and job stress. In contrast, positive outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, citizenship behavior) are primarily explained by justice, not injustice.
Featured Image
Photo by Alexis Fauvet on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Theoretical advancement: Challenges the dominant assumption that justice and injustice are opposite ends of the same continuum, showing they are psychologically and empirically distinct constructs. Predictive precision: Demonstrates that ignoring injustice leads to underestimating key negative workplace outcomes. Practical relevance: Suggests that organizations focusing only on promoting fairness may overlook early warning signals linked to stress, vigilance, and counterproductive behavior. Cultural contribution: Extends justice–injustice theory to a non-Western, Arab cultural context, strengthening cross-cultural validity in organizational psychology.
Perspectives
In much of organizational research, fairness is treated as the full story. Our findings suggest that this is only half the picture. Employees react differently when rules are violated than when rules are followed, even if both are part of the same organizational system. By explicitly measuring injustice, researchers and practitioners can better understand why employees become distracted, hostile, or stressed—even in organizations that appear “fair” on the surface.
Prof. Othman H Alkhadher
Kuwait University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Differential Predictions of Organizational Justice and Injustice: Contribution of Injustice in Prevention-Laden Outcomes, Trends in Psychology, November 2022, Springer Science + Business Media,
DOI: 10.1007/s43076-022-00248-6.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
