This paper examines the relationship between organizational justice and organizational behavior during periods of change in international business settings. It defines organizational justice through three dimensions: distributive justice (fair allocation of outcomes), procedural justice (fairness of decision-making processes), and interactional justice (respectful interpersonal treatment). The paper argues that organizational change—including technological adoption, outsourcing, and restructuring—often triggers employee perceptions of unfairness, leading to resistance and decreased performance. Drawing on examples such as social media use in recruitment and outsourcing practices, the paper demonstrates how cultural factors shape justice expectations globally. The analysis shows that managers must proactively address justice concerns during change initiatives to maintain employee engagement, organizational citizenship, and competitive advantage.
For several centuries, justice has been one of the most discussed and deliberated topics among intellectuals and philosophers across different fields of science. This is a wide-ranging conception that has distinct uses in any sector as well as in human life, ranging from individual behavior to the intricate operations of social institutions, particularly government and managerial organizations. Justice is arguably one of the most significant primary issues in human relations and associations. The moment two individuals, parties, or entities need to relate with each other in order to interchange necessary and required goods, issues of fairness and justice emerge (Fischer, 2012, p. 98; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001, p. 289).
In organizational contexts, fairness becomes increasingly complex as it involves relationships between multiple stakeholders with competing interests and expectations. The presence or absence of justice shapes employee motivation, commitment, and willingness to support organizational objectives. Understanding how justice operates across diverse international settings is therefore critical for leaders managing global workforces.
Organizational justice is defined as the awareness and concern of fairness among managers and supervisors in providing employees with equal opportunities and prospects in employment. Organizational justice also encompasses the insights and principles of equality and impartiality in the organizational setting (Gilliland, Steiner, and Skarlicki, 2001). In theory, organizational justice can be divided into three distinct elements: interactional justice, distributive justice, and procedural justice (Skarlicki, 2001, p. 292).
Change connects to this theory of organizational justice by signifying reasonable and fair-minded chances for all employees to compete for and be evaluated by means of predetermined measures. This ensures that selected groups will not be employed arbitrarily, even though reality shows that individuals receive differential benefits or compensation based on merit and performance (George, 2011, p. 4).
Justice maintains the continued existence of social structures and binds the social components together. Conversely, lack of justice brings about the dissolution and separation of these components. In a structure aligned with justice, managers are expected to treat their personnel in a manner that does not hurt individuals' self-esteem, to provide treatment in a generous manner, and to respect fairness and equality in issuing and allocating assets, amenities, and managerial measures.
Organizational justice consists of three distinct components:
Distributive justice: Rooted in Adams' equity theory, distributive justice concerns equality observed in outcomes. It is deemed to be an important influence with significant applications in organizational settings, affecting how employees perceive the fairness of rewards, compensation, and recognition.
Procedural justice: This category holds that justice ought to be defined on the basis of fair and impartial procedures. Specifically, unbiased and impartial decisions are those which follow consistent, transparent processes that allow for input and challenge.
Interactional justice: This type takes into account the value of relational and interactive behaviors a person receives before and after a decision is made. It emphasizes how managers communicate decisions and treat employees with respect and dignity.
Taking into consideration that organization is a societal structure whose existence relies on resilient associations between its constituent parts, awareness of injustice would bring forth conflict and undermine the employees' teamwork, motivation, and drive. As a result, it is vital to take organizational justice seriously (Nejadirani, Rasouli, Yadegari, and Shahri, 2013, p. 11).
Changes within the organization cannot be avoided and are often necessary to ensure that organizations remain resilient and competitive. However, the impacts of these changes on employees and the workforce are often barely considered or taken into account—a significant oversight, considering that employees are ultimately accountable for implementing and advancing changes within the organization (Visser, 2012, p. 2).
In present-day organizations, there is an increasing need to execute changes on a continuous basis. These changes are necessitated by ongoing developments in the environment, such as rising globalization and technological advancement. In particular, during times of economic and financial crises, organizations are compelled to change and modify their strategies, cultures, and internal structures (Visser, 2012, p. 5). However, regardless of how necessary these changes may appear, they do not always align with employee expectations and needs.
Primary responses of workers toward change are often negative. Most employees perceive these changes to be unfair and contrary to their interests. For instance, a simple example would be an organization's decision not to distribute year-end bonuses during an economic crisis. This change in strategy would be perceived by employees as unfair and biased. This is where organizational justice becomes critical. When change occurs within an organization, key employee concerns center on justice—which quickly becomes a significant source of conflict. By introducing change, individuals are taken out of their comfort zone, which may imply a difficult transition period (Visser, 2012, p. 6).
According to George (2011, p. 9), the demands from organizational settings continuously create stress for numerous companies. This can be observed in rapidly changing codes of practice, competitive marketplaces, and regulations. There is a rising level of competition among companies in different industries, compelling managers to reconsider their business strategies and approaches. Not only is there external pressure; organizations must also deal with internal demands and pressures. These include changing employee attitudes, labor-management tensions, and decreased productivity levels.
The changing nature of present-day organizations, especially those competing in international marketplaces, makes it important that executives remain open and flexible to fresh concepts, attitudes, and outlooks. This openness and flexibility allows them to anticipate and adapt to market changes, incorporate them into tactical strategies, and preserve competitive advantage (George, 2011, p. 9).
Due to changes in the environment, organizations are becoming obligated to adapt to a changing labor force, technological progress, and shifts in organizational values and beliefs. Meeting these challenges requires competent employees, dedication to training and development, and idealistic leadership. Additionally, treating women and minority groups fairly necessitates placing emphasis on assessment and selection programs. In tandem with these changes, social justice and civil liberties are increasingly valued in the workplace, with demands for independence, employee privileges, job safety, equal employment opportunities, and fair compensation.
As workforce demographics change—particularly with increased diversity and cross-cultural composition—new pressures emerge for managerial understanding and receptive hiring practices. Change is inevitable for every culture. As changes in society can impact organizations, so too can organizations initiate and steer changes in society. Organizations are vital agents in the alteration, preservation, and change of cultural values within modern societies.
According to Beugré (2007, p. 154), social norms and moral standards change over time and across cultures. As a result, these shifts may influence employee expectations and preferences regarding justice. Beugré discovered that in China, workers in organizations experiencing significant ownership change expressed stronger preferences for inequality allocation rules but weaker preferences for fairness rules. With cultural change also comes probable shifts in the psychological effects on organization members. Younger members may not understand traditional cultural philosophies and values and therefore may not display the psychological predispositions shown by older members. It is important to note that cultures do not remain static and therefore influence how organizational justice is understood (Beugré, 2007, p. 154).
According to Ince and Gul (2011, p. 134), change brings forward understanding, capability, and entities equipped with these capacities as the key indicators of rivalry and achievement. This requirement applies to every aspect of organizational life. Therefore, elements influencing organizational achievement in a competitive world are related not with physical standards but frequently with immaterial standards and intellectual capital. In the present day, success is not perceived as residing in products and services themselves but in the understanding, ability, expertise, and potential to replicate and modernize the characteristics essential for producing these goods and services.
The process of converting employee talents and expertise into key organizational inputs emerges as a consequence of the psychological connection and agreement between employee and organization, which extends beyond formal job descriptions. One major aspect of change that can bring about conflict is the use of social media within organizational processes. Technological advancement in this area can create a sense of unfairness and partiality, resulting in conflict among employees.
Social Media and Recruitment. One significant organizational change involves the use of social media in the recruitment and hiring process. Employers are expected to exercise caution when using social networks for employment screening or when observing and inspecting personal employee profiles during recruitment (SHRM, 2012). With technological advancement, social media has been increasingly used by organizations to screen candidates for positions. However, this practice carries potential conflicting outcomes from both personnel and legal perspectives (SHRM, 2012).
Employees often consider this practice a violation of privacy. Majority argue that their personal lives should not be considered in professional hiring decisions. Employees could claim that employers refused them a job as a result of information accessed on social networking sites. This could introduce issues of unfairness or prejudice based on race, ethnicity, political views, or family ties—all constituting organizational injustice. As stated earlier, organizational justice is the sense of moral decency in the manner employees are treated. It is what permits individuals to work together effectively. This particular change could be deemed by employees as organizational injustice, which is harmful for both individual employees and the organization as a whole (Cropanzano, Bowen, and Gilliland, 2007, p. 34).
Outsourcing. Due to increased globalization, organizations have more options than ever before. Managers are constantly stimulated to adapt, reconsider, and strategically improve procedures and methodologies. As a result, organizations regularly change their structures, cultures, and systems. One significant change across different organizations globally is outsourcing, a strategy whereby organizations decide to make use of external resources for activities previously undertaken by internal personnel (Schillen and Steinke, 2011, p. 63).
With the rise in outsourcing by companies, numerous employees have faced drastic organizational change. However, management scholars have largely overlooked the employees' perspective on the issue. The outlooks, opinions, and behaviors of workers affected by outsourcing are important aspects that ought to be considered. This is because workers remaining in an organization following workforce reduction face numerous challenges and difficulties.
These difficulties ought to be acknowledged and taken into account if the organization desires to sustain a strong labor force capable of functioning at full capacity (Schillen and Steinke, 2011, p. 64). This change causes conflict and hampers the relationship between employer and organization. Remaining employees deem outsourcing unfair because not only are they seeing fellow employees laid off, but they themselves must work with reduced numbers. This is unsurprising, as outsourcing is repeatedly implemented with major organizational change and minimal consideration for its influence on continuing personnel.
Remaining employees might face issues encompassing work-related pressure, job stress, job security, satisfaction, exhaustion, motivation, psychological contracts, misperception, job involvement, and organizational commitment. The organizational change can bring about employee resistance due to lack of organizational justice. This might result in low motivation, decreased efficiency levels, reduced organizational citizenship behaviors, and cultural conflict. Organizations must be cognizant of such changes and their negative impacts.
Organizational justice is important because lack of it results in decreased performance and efficiency, and amplified turnover (Schillen and Steinke, 2011, p. 64). Research has shown that aspects such as customer satisfaction and loyalty can be affected by workers' opinions of equity, in addition to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The outsourcing practice has an intense impact on numerous groups of workers: those out of work due to downsizing, those hired by new contractors, those continuing in the organization, and those employed offshore. Employees perceive this change as unfair because they are either deprived of work or forced to work under reduced conditions, resulting in poor manager-employee relationships (Schillen and Steinke, 2011, p. 66).
Change is inevitable. According to George (2011, p. 9), the demands from organizational settings continuously generate stress for numerous companies. This can be observed in the rapidly changing codes of practice, competitive marketplaces, and regulations. Rising competition among companies in different industries compels managers to reconsider business strategies and approaches. External pressures combine with internal demands, including changing employee attitudes, labor-management tensions, and decreased productivity. These changes can result in senses of inequality in the organization, creating a need for organizational justice.
Organizational justice takes into account the vital awareness and concern of fairness among executives and supervisors in offering employees equivalent chances and prospects in employment. Organizational justice also incorporates the visions and insights of fairness and neutrality in the organizational context (Gilliland, Steiner, and Skarlicki, 2001).
Change within organizations can result in conflict between employees and employers due to perceptions of unfairness and lack of even-handed action. This demonstrates the importance of organizational justice across different cultures. According to Schillen and Steinke (2011, p. 65), research has shown that aspects such as customer satisfaction and loyalty can be affected by workers' opinions and views of equity, in addition to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. One change that can greatly cause conflict and a sense of inequity is outsourcing. It is imperative to take into account the impact that outsourcing has on personnel involved (Schillen and Steinke, 2011, p. 66).
For organizations to successfully navigate change in an increasingly complex global environment, managers must recognize that organizational justice is not merely a human resources concern—it is a strategic imperative. By attending to distributive, procedural, and interactional justice during periods of change, organizations can reduce resistance, maintain employee engagement, and preserve the organizational culture necessary for sustained competitive advantage.
You’re 99% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.