M7 – Justice (Due 10/20)

Since we are studying two chapters (7 & 8) on motivation, and since I am asking for you to do research and I am posting this assignment late, your discussion is not due until next Saturday (10/20). Replies to your classmates are not required.


While there are more than two dimensions of justice outlined in this Chapter, this discussion will focus on just two (Distributive and Procedural). Distributive justice reflects the perceived fairness of decision outcomes. This means employees gauge justice by asking whether outcomes like pay, rewards, promotions, etc. are allocated according to proper norms (usually equity).  Procedural justice reflects the perceived fairness in the processes that lead to decision outcomes. Some common procedural justice rules might include: consistency (procedures don’t change over time), bias suppression (keeping interview questions unbiased), and representation (or even ownership in decision making).

Some might think that procedural justice doesn’t really matter – people should only care about the outcomes they receive. When it comes to negative outcomes, however, research suggests that these outcomes trigger a more thorough investigation into the processes that led to that outcome. This certainly makes sense especially as we review the past year of political events in the nation where everyone seems to want “justice” when the outcome isn’t what they want. In the business world, both distributive and procedural justice combine to influence employees reactions to outcomes.

For this assignment, do some research and find an article, situation, event, etc. (business related preferred), where employees were motivated (or unmotivated) by distributive or procedural justice.  Write at least 2 paragraphs on a synopsis of the situation/outcome, what dimension of justice was involved (or not involved), then place yourself in the managers or leaders shoes and determine if you would have handled it differently.  You might find a situation where justice (or injustice) appears, but it’s not business or employee related.  This would be fine to write on as well.

This assignment does not have to be in executive memo format. Your grading rubric will include:

  • Student applies concept of distributive and procedural justice correctly
  • Student provided unique citations/references
  • Formatting, grammar and spelling corrected
  • Innovative response or manner in which to handle the situation

When you are ready to post, scroll to the bottom to “Post Comment.”

27 Comments for “M7 – Justice (Due 10/20)”



Distributive Justice VS. Procedural Justice

After writing and thinking about the difference in these to definitions you could consider that at some point they could blend and become one. I will not say that either of the justice’s are wrong, but I think in certain situations Procedural Justice would be more appropriate. I have worked for both kinds of bosses. Of course, in two different circumstances there is different ways to manage and different ways of management. Distributive justice was given at the second job. It was the owner’s discretion on who received recognition and what type of pay. Why I did not agree with this is it was not based on your experience in the job. It was based on who you knew and what you would do for them.
An example but not spot on is part of this article:
The authors investigated the relationship between organizational justice and organizational retaliation behavior—adverse reactions to perceived unfairness by disgruntled employees toward their employer—in a sample of 240 manufacturing employees. Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice interacted to predict organizational retaliation behavior. A relation between distributive justice and retaliation was found only when there was low interactional and procedural justice. The 2-way interaction of distributive and procedural justice was observed only at a low level of interactional justice, and the 2-way interaction of distributive and interactional justice was observed only at a low level of procedural justice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

If I were to manage and have employee’s that I was in charge in. I would combine the two justices. As I said earlier each could be right in certain circumstances. If you combined distributive and procedural all would be better for owners, managers and employees. Make some executive decisions on what you believe would work and bring that to the table to talk about it. More ideas and suggestions are better than one. Being a team will last longer than every man for himself. This is also all in my own opinion. If we are going to talk about advancement in the company and pay scale. I think that it should be based on documentation on experience and what you could do to enhance the organization.

Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice.
By Skarlicki, Daniel P.,Folger, Robert
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 82(3), Jun 1997, 434-443



The business that I research for this assignment was a correctional officer job. This job is very high stressed and also has its drawbacks since the high-stress environment that surrounds the job there can be a high turnover, an increase in medical problems, and absenteeism. Looking at organizational justice in the correctional/ law enforcement sector it was shown that people tend to look at officers better when they are held to a fair standard as everyone else is. “A survey of people in several communities, Tyler (1990) found that police who felt that the criminal justice system treated people with fairness were more likely to follow the law, and Wagner and Moriarity (2002) found increased support for drug testing of workers in those organizations whose drug testing policy was perceived as fair” (Lambert, Hogan, and Griffin, 2007). With police officers that are there to uphold the law have to also be the ones who follow the law. Procedural justice also had a key element in how employees felt when people got raises etc. Procedural justice wants everyone to understand not only who gets the promotion but also why they get the promotion. In the correctional officer area that the study was done found that the employees cared about understanding why someone got the raise or promotion. “Perceived fairness of the procedures for employee evaluation were very important among employees, regardless of whether their performance appraisals were negative or positive. (Lambert, Hogan, and Griffin, 2007). The employees in the correctional field found that they would rather understand why they didn’t receive a promotion rather than not understanding at all.
As a manager, there are positives and negatives when deciding which to use. I believe in this given scenario that the manager did a decent job in regards to using procedural justice. In this given study they found that it was favorable to use procedural justice. The employee’s jobs are to uphold the law and make sure to hold themselves accountable for their actions. If the employee is showing a great example of how to be an outstanding officer and also applying fairness to the community and also the criminals that are in the justice system I would have no problem in giving them a raise in the near future. The employees that didn’t receive a promotion I would be using the procedural justice to have them understand why I distributed the rewards the way that I did. Using this way the employees would understand what they need to improve on in the future to work their way up the ladder in the organization. The procedural does have its downsides because sometimes employees will not take the news well when they see others get a raise and not themselves. Another downside is if the supervisor that is grading you is not fair or doesn’t grade each employee properly is also a negative because the promotion relies on what upper management thinks. In this certain case, it is a better thing to have the employees understands why. It is not the case with all organizations, but if I were an employee I would like to understand why I didn’t receive a promotion so that I can work harder. Procedural justice involves having trust in the workplace and also your upper management.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Griffin, M. (2007, December). Home. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://organizationalbehavior.community.uaf.edu/2018/10/10/m7-justice-due-10-20/



You made some good points. I too, would like to have a good/solid understanding as to why I wasn’t deserving of a raise, promotion, or other. It is easy to understand when you do receive something you are deserving of but not understanding is difficult.

Your last sentence though caught my attention. “Procedural justice involves having trust in the workplace and also your upper management.” Having trust in those making ‘just’ decisions is so important. Without trust in those making decisions, justice may be perceived in a number of different ways that are very inconsistent but mostly unfair.

Ashlyn Warning


M7 Discussion

Procedural vs. Distributive Justice – Google Employees Take a Victory

For Google employees earlier this month, a victory was had. In the online article, “Google kills bid for $10 billion Pentagon contract after employee protests,” author Chris Mills explains that employees protested their employer for, “what they perceived as their company’s enabling of warfare technology.” To explain, Google had bid $10 million to a Pentagon cloud computing project called JEDI (Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure). This bid would move the DoD’s data to a centralized cloud infrastructure or in other words a commercial cloud solution. Google released a statement ultimately saying that they are dropping the bid because they fear the JEDI contract does not fall into their AI Principles and that parts of the contract do not coincide with their current government certifications.
Not only did employees succeed in getting the bid dropped, but they also, “demanded a corporate policy to prevent Google from working on harmful technologies in the future” (Mills, 2018). I would say that the result of their victory was in line with distributive justice especially being that the employees met a positive outcome. They didn’t question how Google came to this decision or the process that went into them ultimately deciding to drop the bid; they were just happy that the outcome was that they dropped it. Had the outcome been a negative one, then I think procedural justice would come into play and they would be questioning why Google reached the decision to keep the bid, but that isn’t the case here. If I were one of the executives for Google that was involved with responding to the employee protests, I probably would have come to the same conclusion. It seems safer to drop the bid since employees were threatening resignation and that the JEDI contract was not in line with their policies. In order to keep an established trust between managers and subordinates, guidelines should be followed which will in turn create better job satisfaction.

Mills, Chris. “Google Kills Bid for $10 Billion Pentagon Contract after Employee Protests.” Salon, Salon Media Group, Inc, 12 Oct. 2018, http://www.salon.com/2018/10/13/google-kills-bid-for-10-billion-pentagon-contract-after-employee-protests_partner/.



Ashlyn Warning

I had heard about the JEDI cloud contract and Google dropping their bid in the news. I think that Google dropping the bid due to employee feedback and the valid points that were made shows that they are a company of some integrity. I say ‘some’, because I don’t have great confidence in a large company such as Google always being a company of integrity – especially when big money and politics is involved.

Anyway, I found this article interesting as when I was doing research on my own write up regarding Amazon, I ran across the following article titled “Jeff Bezos is just fine taking the Pentagons $10B JEDI Cloud Contract”. In this article in stated: “Some tech companies might have a problem taking money from the Department of Defense, but Amazon isn’t one of them, as CEO Jeff Bezos made clear today at the Wired25 conference. Just last week, Google pulled out of the running for the Pentagon’s $10 billion, 10-year JEDI cloud contract, but Bezos suggested that he was happy to take the government’s money.” (Ron Miller).

This lack of integrity the headline portrays lines up with the piece I read and wrote about. It is discouraging that this is the example being set for other large organizations to follow.

If I were a Google worker, I would be proud of my company for their display of distributive justice principles, and be glad I wasn’t an Amazon employee.

Stephanie Nelson

Stephanie Nelson


The article written by Matthew Elmas demonstrates how it is important for managers and the company to provide procedural justice on how outcomes with their employees are to be handled. According to the article, an employee that works for a small business was fired, because she was conducting personal business during work hours. The employee opened a business when she was on maternity leave selling candles, bath and body products. The employee received no warning, no explanation for her actions but rather sent into the manager’s office to only discover she was to be fired. The manager reveals that “ it should have never happened, but at the end of the day, we didn’t follow the steps for dismissing her properly” (Elmas, 2018). The employee used poor judgment that put his company at risk. The same outcome may had resulted if he would have just slowed his role and consulted their HR department and supervisor evaluating the situation and not making a rash decision on a delicate situation.

In this scenario, I would have contacted the HR department and consult about the matters of the employee. If there is no HR due to the size of my company, then researching the issues on policies for disciplinary procedures would be done. Communicating with higher management regarding the issue would be important to discuss what the disciplinary procedures are in place for the employee. Then hold a meeting with the employee to inform her of the policies of the company and how her personal business activity during work hours breaks the policy. Either a warning can be given, reprimand or suspension from work with no pay can be issued.

Elmas, M. (2018). Business ordered to rehire worker it sacked for operating a side business on company time: A lesson in proper dismissal procedure – SmartCompany. [online] SmartCompany. Available at: https://www.smartcompany.com.au/business-advice/legal/business-ordered-rehire-worker-sacked-operating-side-business-company-time-lesson-proper-dismissal-procedure/ [Accessed 18 Oct. 2018].

Tyler Cline


This study was done in poor countries and how their health care could be better and where they can allocate different things to help make it better. They did the study in the past 10 years in 11 different facilities. “Distributive justice concerns allocation of goods, for example salary and financial incentives, whereas procedural justice concerns “perceptions of the fairness of decision-making processes” (NCBI). They were trying to find out how to make the workers have a better experience and make them do better within the company. They tried to accomplish this by giving out different incentives to different parts of the health care facility. Mangers were giving out time off or bonuses to different people within the facility.

They were trying to see how these would affect the work force in the health care. During the study of giving out bonuses and time off to different individuals. They became to think that a lot of it was unfair to see others get bonuses to only to people working hard. Some workers thought that everyone deserved a bonus and time off from work. Motivation was only given to the people that were receiving the incentives.

I would have been upset if I was working just as hard as someone that got time off. Time off is something that everyone wants and people want a bonus as well. I would head to the HR and ask what was going on but, they would say it’s a motivation training for the company.




It sounds like an interesting experiment. As far as if its fair or not, I think it’d fall under distributive injustice. There are bonuses and leave being given out like candy, but only to the individuals that are determined to work the hardest. How do you determine who works the hardest? If it is purely based off of results and completion of tasks there could be a drastic difference in the difficulty of work individuals are performing, thus unfair. Incentives are good in any occupational, but they need to be obtainable or shared among everyone.




Big developments deserve big praise, however sometimes recognition for an accomplishment is overlooked in the interest of the company retaining the glory. The article, “Why an ex-employee who has always had a job ‘available for him’ is suing Apple,” highlights the struggles of a crucial team member trying to receive appropriate credit for the work he put into the company, creating a distributive injustice. The ex-employee, Darren Eastman, was hired on personally by Apple’s former CEO Steve Jobs and had enjoyed a healthy work environment where his input was held in high regard for the adaptation of new phone features. The article goes on to link the changes from a pleasant, albeit high demand, job to a grueling task force where, according to Eastman, Apple employees “were now regularly being disciplined and terminated for reporting issues, an action which had been expected of them during Mr. Jobs tenure”(Gadgets Now Bureau, 2018). He also states that the company’s dedication to quality has suffered under new management, specifically under the new CEO Tim Cook. From the article’s wording, one can make an assumption that Eastman had communication directly with Cook, possibly allowing for more personal grievances from interactions stemming from interpersonal injustices.
In an innovative, technological company disputes over recognition would be more commonplace than in other settings because you are directly working with the talent at the cutting edge. As a manager I would seek to have an impartial procedure in place that allowed for tracking of participation linked directly to projects. Having this in place would create a log that could be used as a reference, hopefully eliminating any factors of personal bias. I also believe a clear chain of command is beneficial. A clear chain of command alleviates miscommunication issues because the employee will be equipped to approach the correct party with their complaints and hopefully not escalate a problem to the point of public scrutiny.

Retrieved from:




An article written titled “Loyal L.L. Bean customer sues company for changing legendary returns policy” was written by Ashley May and published February 14, 2018 to USA Today. This article talks about a loyal customer named Victor Bondi who was filing a lawsuit against the company for changing their warranty policy without a heads up. This situation is rather strange, as some people never notice such changes. Yet, Victor Bondi said that their original policy was the reason he shopped there as it is the “basis of the bargain”. This article ends with the executive chairman, Shawn Gorman, stating that they sent out a letter explaining the change. The change was due to people abusing the policy by returning items that they didn’t purchase, or even items that were extremely worn. Such things can create a huge loss for a company.
To me, this issue is something I would consider to be a procedural matter. In our reading it talked about procedural justice only being the biggest issue when something happens that wasn’t wanted. This causes the process to come into question. In the article, Victor said that the change in policy was his biggest concern because there is supposed to be a warning. This may not have to deal with an employee, but the customers are just as important in making a business work. I think the matter would have been better if the customers had the opportunity to help in the decision as it will affect the company, and potentially the employees. I wanted to look at a company but not dealing with the employees as sometimes the situations affect everyone else besides the employee.
We commonly face these issues with the justice and law systems. Political figures are often seen as bad by others but great for someone else. It is always who is affected by the change or the upcoming change that calls everything into question. Distributive and procedural justice obviously do not relate to just businesses. They are both important factors that we see every day. Kind of like a toddler throwing a fit in a store because the parent said no to their wants. I have always heard the kid respond with “why not,” or “but I want it”. These are phrases that are questioning the actual why to the thought of no.

May, Ashley. “’Loyal’ L.L. Bean Customer Sues Company for Changing Legendary Returns Policy.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 14 Feb. 2018, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/02/14/loyal-l-l-bean-customer-sues-company-changing-legendary-returns-policy/337984002/.



I would like to begin by stating that while I understood the basis of the crisis, this was my first actual effort in research (unless you count watching the news as research) of the Flint water situation, and now understand much more the severity of neglect and INJUSTICE that has and still is occurring.

To discuss the situational factors that can be attributed to either distributive or procedural injustice in the Flint Water Case, another term needs to be introduced: Environmental (In)Justice. The EPA defines Environmental Justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” Paul Mohai, a professor of the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability, states that “Given the magnitude of the disaster in Flint, the role that public officials’ decisions played that led to the poisoning of the city’s water, their slow pace at acknowledging and responding to the problem, and the fact that Flint is a city of almost 100,000 people indeed makes this the most egregious example of environmental injustice and racism in my over three decades of studying this issue.” The article proceeds to break down Environmental Justice in much the same way our textbook breaks down organizational justice, and defines distributive and procedural justice in the same way, albeit considering societal groups and demographics rather than individual employees or teams and compares those groups to larger societal groups (i.e. compares population of Flint to the rest of Michigan or to the US as a whole) rather than to other employees or members of significance.
The framing in the argument for injustices for the affected people of Flint is that communities with higher levels of poverty and minority populations do not see the same care for environmental issues that those of more affluent areas do. In this sense, there is a strong (almost infallible) argument that Flint citizens were (and are) victims of both distributive and procedural environmental injustice, and their outrage over the treatment they received by governmental and community agencies is valid.
On distributive injustice, the lack of care and attention that this disparaged population received, allegedly condoned because of the demographics of the area, shows distinct distributive injustice and inequity in comparison to “whiter”, higher income communities. In the initial dismissal of concerns by the government and declaration that contamination claims were false, willful ignorance is perceived as a distributive injustice as proper concern and attention for the community was not displayed, again, allegedly due do the area’s demographics.
On procedural justice, there are many failures by agencies of authority (yes I understand this is a coined term, but am using it literally) that are more evident than the same for arguments of distributive failure in the case. If there was no bias, normal response from the EPA and other agencies of authority would have addressed the issue initially, and would not have ignored, OR DISMISSED the issues and claimed as false reporting, if even typical levels of concern or consideration were shown. Evidence, even in the early stages of complaints about the change in systems and source used, show procedural negligence in droves. Agencies of authority failed at every point of the situation to address the issue effectively or conduct investigation at the same scale they would other communities. They failed to address concerns and even countered them, they failed to conduct appropriate investigation, and have failed to resolve the problem as evidence continued to arise from both private medical test results as well as the complaints of citizens of health issues. Procedural justice would indicate an effort by agencies to understand the complaints of Flint’s citizens, doctors, and research indicators, and would use this information to conduct their own research, at the very least. The lack of concern after indicators of the issue were revealed show a level of ambiguity towards the community of Flint that would not be expected or acceptable anywhere else in the United States.
As a manager, in the context of this situation, I would be extremely concerned about the source of information. I would also probably get fired, because I would not allow this to happen and it seems that willful negligence occurred at rather high (federal) levels. As a previous student and active participant of disaster management techniques, I don’t think anyone is safe from the negligence of this situation and I would recommend a detailed investigation. It is impossible to guarantee safety, but I would have declared a State of Emergency, if in any position capable (mayor-president as a generalization), to fix this situation. The injustice stems from the initial decision to change water supply, to testing of supply, to responding accordingly and ensuring the safety of citizens when information was made available. It is critical to address these issues seriously, and it is evident by the short duration necessary to collect the evidence from sources not affiliated that Flint was either purposefully or ignorantly ignored. I concur with the findings of these articles and think “injustice”, generally, describes the issue of the Flint Water Crisis.

Butler, Lindsey J., Madeleine K. Scammell, and Eugene B. Benson. “The Flint, Michigan, water crisis: a case study in regulatory failure and environmental injustice.” Environmental Justice 9.4 (2016): 93-97.

Erin Kitchin


In this response to a concerned employee writing to Aunty B from Smart Company, the employee recognizes that there is some favoritism going around at his company. The employee, Simon, is frustrated over the fact that a “mate” of his boss is getting away with slacking on the job. They will not move him on and this “mate” get’s moved around instead. Simon says the boss’s mate show’s up late, regularly takes off time and turns off his screen when you walk by. The only response Simon get’s back, is “he is probably doing more than you see.” Unfortunately for Simon, and many others, some companies will show favoritism towards employees, despite their merit. This shows to be more of a procedural injustice issue. Even if Simon and the bosses mate were to both be promoted or let go, the procedure behind it would be unfair in Simon’s eyes, since he feels he does more work. This issue could turn into a distributive issue if the outcome for the boss’s mate were to be anything other than what Simon perceives he deserves.
It would be tough to be the manager in this situation. The manager has a close friend, that they more than likely enjoy working with, but is not meeting standards. As a manager, I would have hoped to already establish a working relationship with this friend, and avoid this situation altogether. Since the issue has occurred, I would ask Simon if he knows of others who have the same issue. It may just be a personal issue between Simon and the manager’s friend. The issue should be approached with procedural justice in mind, and what other coworkers are going to think if my actions are unfair or incomplete. If there really is an issue, I’d speak with my friend (as hard as it may be) and learn what is going on. After using a procedural approach, I’d like the outcome to be considered under distributive justice. Optimally, my friend would have had the appropriate actions placed upon them and Simon would be satisfied and no longer bothered by the issues my friend was causing.




M7 – Justice
After, and in response to harsh criticism, Amazon announces that it will raise the minimum wage to $15/hr for all employees. For years workers have voiced claims of poor working environment, high expectations, and low pay.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has called out Amazon for not paying a living wage to their employees and on September 5, 2018 introduced a bill called the “Stop BEZOS Act”. The bill’s name pokes at Amazon’s founder Jeffrey Bezos (the richest person on the planet). The name of the bill stands for “Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies”.

Following the news that Amazon would be raising their minimum wage, Bernie Sanders praised Amazon/Bezos and noted that “Not only does this make a difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of Amazon employees, it also sends a message to the fast food industry, the airline industry and the retail industry in general that the time is now to begin paying workers a living wage,”

Amazon’s actions, the involvement of a Senator, and the introduction of the Stop BEZOS Act all add complexity to the reality of this situation. The increased minimum wage, and minor pay increases (0.25/hr – 0.55/hr) could be perceived as both distributive and procedural justice as well as injustice.

Raises for all employees based on the criteria involved to make this decision could be perceived as both distributive and procedural justice. The perception is that the employee got what they deserved and the process in making that happen was fair translating to the perception that their corporate culture is also fair. I would suspect that the increase in pay will temporarily motivate many workers especially since it comes right before the major spending holidays. I would also have to say that if I were an employee, I would feel terribly unmotivated and unheard regardless of the increase – just because of the way the increase was finally implemented.

What may be immediately perceived as justice could also be perceived as both distributive and procedural injustice. Employees have been voicing their concerns for years on deaf ears. Once their concerns landed in the political arena and were represented by a respected politician, Amazon almost immediately announced their new min. wage. Along with their announcement comes a potential consequence (depending on your political views) for many other industries that pay their workers minimum wage. The fact that their employees will be earning more money, starting 11/1/18 does not change the fact that they still work in poor work environments with high expectations that are often difficult to meet and not sustainable long term.

The most glaring point to me in this article is that for Amazon to listen, you have to have some clout. I would see what processes, if any are in place for workers to voice their concerns AND be heard. I would also review their pay, benefits, and incentive practices to ensure workers are feeling appreciated and motivated.

Bhattarai, Abha. “Amazon Boosts Minimum Wage to $15 for All Workers Following Criticism.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 2 Oct. 2018, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/02/amazon-announces-it-will-boost-minimum-wage-all-workers-after-facing-criticism/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f2a7719a9975.




In Governor walker’s opinion piece from the Anchorage Daily News titled Why I Reduced The Permanent Fund Dividend, he outlines the reasoning behind his decision (Walker). As Alaskans we all follow this topic very closely and we all have our opinions about it. I have no intention of taking a side for this decision. This situation was chosen because it models Organizational Justice better than almost anything, as long as perception of what is fair in the workplace is substituted for what is fair in Alaska.

The perception of fairness is generally accepted because Fund distribution has always been equally shared and unbiased. Once the distributive of the Fund was altered, only then did Alaskans begin to pay attention to the procedural part of the distribution. Much of the outrage comes from the public not having a say in the decision-making process. However, people will now be motivated to have their voice heard with the upcoming gubernatorial election. Prior to Walker’s announcement to suspend his campaign (Hanlon), an Alaskan’s vote was a stand for or against the decision. Only time will reveal what Alaskans feel is fair.

What would I have done differently? Hard to say, Walker is very transparent in his message citing budget deficits and claiming long term sustainment. But the biggest problem here is that it disrupts one key element of Procedural Justice; people perceive procedures as fair when they are made in a consistent manner (Robbin and Judge 226).

Works Cited
Hanlon, Tegan. Anchorage Daily News. Alaska Gov. Bill Walker ends campaign for re-election, endorses Mark Begich.
Robbins, Stephen P., Judge, Timothy A. Organizational Theory and Behavior. Pearson, 2017.
Walker, Bill. Anchorage Daily News. Why I Reduced The Permanent Fund Dividend

Josh Petersen


In this article Amazon employees are protesting and petitioning against a new type of facial recognition software that the company has recently been selling and advertising on their site. The new software is from a company named Palantir who’s software used in the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation and tracking program. The employees have started a petition that they are sending to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos that has over 450 signatures currently as of October 18, 2018. The employees main statement in their letter to their CEO is “Amazon is designing, marketing, and selling a system for dangerous mass surveillance right now.” Another employee said that the employees were “disappointed” when the company stated it supports law enforcement, defense, and intelligence customers, despite not knowing what they are actually using these products for. I would say that this is a form and example of procedural justice. The reasoning being that the employees feel as though they should have some kind of say what the company that they work for sells. They feel that it does not represent their beliefs. The text describes procedural justice as employees having a direct influence of how decisions are made or at least being able to present their opinion to their decision makers which makes them feel empowered. This is exactly what the Amazon employees are doing by directly telling their employers how they feel about Amazon selling these types of products. As of now the article did not state that the Amazon leadership had responded to the demands.
If I was in a managerial position I would take my employees beliefs and feeling very seriously. I would encourage them to let me know if there is something that needs to be addressed. I would let them know that some things may be out of my hands to change but I would address the issue and report it to my superior. In this situation I am not sure there would be much that I could do unless I was the CEO. In the end Amazon is a business and businesses need to make money. If this product is legal and makes money, then most likely the product will have to be sold.

Retrieved from: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-10-18/amazon-employees-protesting-sale-of-facial-recognition-software



In this article there was an example of work place discrimination in regards to an employee named Mary who is six months pregnant. Mary has proved her loyalty to her career field based off of her length of employment and has also showed that she is more qualified and has more experience than the other applicants. Despite her experience and qualifications, she was not chosen for the position. Feedback for why she was not selected for the position was because they were looking for someone that would be more dedicated to the position. The assumption here is that since Mary will be having a newborn soon, she will not be able to concentrate on her job. This act demonstrates procedural injustice because Mary is not being looked at in the same category as everyone else that applied for the job. When determining to promote, there needs to be a standardized system that is both fair and balanced to select the best person for a job. The most common system would to use professional work related factors such as performance, experience and qualification. In this circumstance there was a deciding factor that dug into an individual’s personal life that is not appropriate for the workplace.
In the circumstance that I was the manager in this scenario, I would construct a more standardized system to avoid any personal factors in the hiring process. I would attempt to have multiple people on the hiring board to assist in the selection process and to ensure that the employees have procedural justice when being compared to their peers.

4 Examples of Workplace Discrimination. (2017, February 21). Retrieved from https://mdclegal.com.au/4-examples-workplace-discrimination/




The article I found was about Walt Disney motivating some of his employees. The author started off by talking about his longtime friend, Mike Vance, and how he used to work for Walt Disney in the past. Mike was asked by Walt Disney to see if he could get more money out of Disneyland to make movies. So Mike gathered a team of seven people and they came up with an idea to open the park throughout the entire week. At the time the park was only open from Wednesday to Sunday. To get people to come, they instituted the Magic Kingdom Club, which essentially let members give their employees discounted admissions for Monday and Tuesday. After this went off without a hitch, all seven of the team members were given shares of Disney Stock and twenty-five thousand dollars and then asked to do it again. The same team gathered again and implemented Grad Nite, which was an event for Thursday nights in May where graduating high school seniors would be allowed entry into the park. Once again it went off without a problem and the same team members were given twenty-five thousand dollars and a red Ferrari. When they were asked to do it again one of the members had left after getting their reward so a new member was required. Walt Disney assigned an MBA to the team and he came up with an idea to write letters directly to the members of the Magic Kingdom Club. The letters would be about selling the members things such as Disney books and records. After hearing this, Walt Disney promoted the MBA to vice president on merit.

Within this situation, I would say that distributive justice was used effectively because all the team members that solved the problem for Walt Disney were given ample rewards for their time and efforts both the first and second time that they met and came up with solutions. The allocation was fair and all the members were given the same reward. However, when the third meeting came around, the lack of procedural justice was evident. Based on the two prior meetings, where the members came up with an idea and were all compensated for it equally, the third time was completely thought of by the one person, the MBA. Since the previous accounts had been based on the consolidation of all the members work it was deemed fair compensation for the results they had brought about when they were all rewarded. Though when the one person on the team came up with the idea he was promoted directly to the top.

If I was in the manager’s position, I would probably have gone about rewarding the team members equally the first two times as well. For the third time I would have given the MBA compensation equal to the rewards from one of the other times rather than simply promote them to the top based on a single good idea. I would think it better to see how they perform over time and then promoting them. It would also seem fairer to the rest of the employees in that sense.

Bradt, George. “Disney’s Best Ever Example Of Motivating Employees.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 3 Aug. 2016, http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgebradt/2015/05/20/disneys-best-ever-example-of-motivating-employees/#15ad462d144b.



The article that I found regarding justice from the employees’ point of view was the topic of the recent merge between the companies Nest and Google. The company Nest is well known for its smart home devices such as thermostats, carbon monoxide detectors and security cameras, rejoined with Google. Before the most recent rejoin, Nest was part of Google’s hardware division, but more recently will be a part of Google’s home devices. Nest’s web-connected home devices can very easily assimilate into the new direction that Google is taking with it’s smart home speakers. With the rejoin, Nest’s CEO Marwan Fawaz has decided to step down from his position and join on Google’s home and living room products team as an executive advisor. The change in position could have largely been due to the new leadership that Nest has assumed with joining with Google, but a part of it was due to employee motivation.
Many employees of Nest were pushing for new leadership which motivated CEO Fawaz to step down from his position. When Fawaz took over as CEO of Nest in 2016 when former CEO Fadell stepped down, the employees started feeling uneasy. Many employees stated that Fawaz was very operationally focused, and was the opposite from his predecessor. The motivation behind the employees wanting Fawaz to step down was due to procedural injustice. As stated above, there seemed to be no consistency in motivation and values between the new CEO and his predecessor. Also there was suspicion of Google planting him as the new CEO in order to motivate the rejoin. With this suspicion, the employees felt as if the leadership wasn’t keeping adequate bias supression. All of these circumstances led to the feeling of procedural injustice, that the employees then voiced. The voices were heard and in response Fawaz has stepped down from the position of CEO and that leadership role has since been terminated.
Nieva, R. (2018, July 17). Nest CEO steps down after employees pushed for his exit. Retrieved from https://www.cnet.com/news/nest-ceo-steps-down-after-employees-pushed-for-his-exit/




An example of distributive injustice in the workplace is when discrimination against disabled workers occurs. Even though discriminating against a person with a disability is illegal, it still happens. This is addressed in the article “Job Discrimination Against the Disabled: Not Just an Academic Issue” which looks at what leads to discrimination of disabled workers and how to resolve the issue. Three main issues that were identified include “negative perceptions” that employers have when considering employing someone with a disability, the second is “lack of external hiring” meaning businesses don’t find ways of recruiting people with disabilities, and lastly, a “lack of internal hiring support” which is when businesses don’t make the proper arrangements to create a workspace to accommodate people with disabilities.

This study found that there were 3 types of companies when it came to discrimination against people with disabilities, the first is called the “discriminator” which includes companies who make no effort to hire anyone with a disability, the second is called the “inclusive companies” these businesses do not recruit people with disabilities, however they do make the proper arrangements to accommodate them if necessary. The last company is called a “choir” which is a type of company that actively recruits people with disabilities.

While reading the definition of distributive justice I remember hearing about a scenario where a person was accepted for a job and when he showed up to work on his first day, his supervisor saw that he had a handicap and let him go, even though the handicap didn’t impair him from performing the job he was hired for. This is why I chose an article on discrimination in the workplace because even though it was outlawed, it still occurs. If I were to put myself in the manager’s position, I would definitely have handled the situation differently, as I hope most people would. I would have followed the laws that don’t allow discrimination and make the appropriate accommodations.

citation: America, Jun 18, 2013, North. “Job Discrimination Against the Disabled: Not Just an Academic Issue.” Knowledge@Wharton, knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/job-discrimination-against-the-disabled-not-just-an-academic-issue/.




Our textbook defines procedural justice as “The perceived fairness of the process used to determine the distribution of rewards” (Robbins & Judge, 2017, p. 226). An article on CNBC.com indicates that earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed by former employees of Nike that, at its core, related to procedural injustice. Those involved in the lawsuit indicated that Nike “intentionally and willfully discriminated against [women] with respect to pay, promotions, and conditions of employment” (Golden, 2018). The content of the lawsuit essentially indicates that the process set up for evaluating women was discriminatory and specifically designed to “marginalize” them (Golden, 2018).

Our textbook defines distributive justice as “perceived fairness of the amount and allocation of rewards among individuals” (Robbins & Judge, 2017, p. 225).
Those leading the lawsuit against Nike observed that the procedural injustice – the differences in treatment – led to distributive injustice, which manifested in reduced financial rewards compared to men: “Nike judges women more harshly than men, which means lower salaries, smaller bonuses, and fewer stock options,” (Golden, 2018). This procedural injustice led workers to feel unmotivated in the workplace because, “For many women at Nike, the company hierarchy is an unclimbable pyramid – the more senior the job title, the smaller the percentage of women” (Golden, 2018). Those leading the lawsuit were motivated, however, to leave the company and to seek legal action.

When putting myself in the shoes of leadership, there are some similarities in how I would have handled the situation and how the CEO handled it. For instance, I agree with his actions to issue a statement indicating that Nike is committed to their employees and conduct a pay review that led to raises for more than 7,000 employees. However, I am troubled that his action of a pay review and the related raises is an immediate fix to one distributive injustice (pay inequality) but does not remedy other distributive injustices, such as fewer stock options, and, more importantly does not fix the root of the problem, which is the procedural injustices – the processes in place. Therefore, I do not find the CEO’s actions to be sufficient and would have personally done more. For instance, rather than giving the male president blamed for a “hostile work environment” an early retirement, I would have publicly fired him to follow suit of other large companies in the wake of the Me Too movement (Golden, 2018). I would have then strategically replaced that president position with a woman to ensure representation at the highest level in the company. Similarly, I would have put policies in place ensuring that all panels that determine rewards, such as who is promoted and which raises are given, include a fair representation of women (one women on each panel would not be enough). According to our text, “employees perceive that procedures are fairer when they are given a say in the decision-making process,” so this is an immediate and practical solution to ensure women have an opportunity to be a part of decisions that impact other women (Robbins & Judge, 2017, p.226). Unfortunately, the allegations in this lawsuit do not only exist at Nike but are commonplace at numerous other companies. This means that if procedural justice-based changes were made by Nike’s leadership, they could affect change at Nike and also set a better example for other companies to follow suit.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2017). Organizational Behavior. Pearson.

Golden, J. (2018, August 10). Nike accused of fostering hostile workplace in new gender discrimination lawsuit. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/10/ex-nike-employees-sue-over-gender-discrimination-hostile-workplace.html

Justin Shepard


I chose to write my synopsis on a real life situation rather than an article found online, all information is first hand from my roommate regarding the construction company he works for.
My roommate works for a construction company. This company has 3 different pay scales, depending on what type of work the employees are doing. Private work commands a 25$ an hour pay rate, equipment operators earn 40$ an hour, and government Davis Bacon jobs earn 58$ per hour. The owner of the company dictates what job you work on a daily basis. Procedural justice looks out how outcomes are decided, in this case, my roommate perceives the procedural justice of the company to be highly unfair. Distributive justice is defined as what outcomes are allocated. One would assume, fairly in my opinion, that the higher paying jobs would be distributed to the harder working employees: ones who show up on time, don’t stand around, or even on a length of employment basis. That is not the case with this company. My roommate, who shows up on time everyday, works hard, and has never called in sick, has been placed on the lowest paying jobs continually throughout the summer. In the mean time, a co worker who has been showing up late, slacking on the job, and even using illegal drugs on the job, is receiving the highest paying jobs consistently.
When procedural justice is perceived as unfair by employees, in can have a traumatic effect on company moral, and greatly reduce productivity. My roommate is at the point where he does not wish to continue employment with the company. Who would? When benefits are distributed unfairly, there is no motivation to work hard. As a manager, owner, or decision maker in any company, distributive and procedural justice need to be considered when deciding how and why benefits are allocated. If my roommates company continues on the path they are on, they will find it very difficult to retain loyal, hard working employees in the future.



From what I have learned, in 2015, the big company we all know, Amazon, seemed to be the most disliked company by their employees for various reasons. In the article “Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace” brings up many requirements that managers want and how they expect their future employees to reach high standards. Some examples of these are: employees receiving emails after midnight and are followed up with text messages asking why they have not responded, how the company boasts about the high standards they have, and how colleagues are taught about an internal phone directory to send secret messages to bosses in which employees have claimed that it is used to sabotage others.

Some other examples of this “bruising workplace” are how employees explained that they were under the weather, had cancer, had miscarriages, or personal crises were treated unfairly and “edged out” instead of given time to recover. A guy named Bol Olsen was mentioned in the article and it was said of him, “He lasted less than two years in a book marketing role and said that his enduring image was watching people weep in the office…”. It was also stated how a worker saw a grown man cry walking out of a meeting.

These are only just a fraction of what other testimonies were given by ex-workers. Overall, this article brings up a flooding amount of points of how Amazon is this bruising workplace with high standards as it was mentioned how it was a place for overachievers to feel bad about themselves. To tie in distributive justice, this workplace does not represent a fair environment with equal rights to workers. The standards seem to be what makes the workers react negatively. As of 2015, Amazon seems to have no justice for their workers. Forwarding to 2018 in October it was stated on CNBC how Amazon increased their minimum wage pay to $15 but cut off monthly bonuses and stock awards. Amazon stated in an email how the minimum wage pay outweighs the loss of benefits. In the article “Amazon’s hourly workers lose monthly bonuses and stock awards as minimum wage increases” it was stated, “The announcement served as a good publicity event for Amazon, which has recently been criticized for the low wages and poor working conditions at its warehouses”. I see this as a step that Amazon took for procedural justice. It is clear from many articles that show how Amazon is looked at as a poor environment for its workers. Taking this procedural step can clarify to the public that they are making an effort.

In this situation, it is hard to find a solution other than better management and less intense standards for employees. If a company is losing hard-working employees every year they should find out why they are losing these workers and make efforts to keep them while still getting work done. There is no better solution than analyzing what the problem is and making executive decisions to help give a better environment for its workers and a better image of Amazon itself. Making the decision to raise minimum wage and cut benefits from employees might be triggering to some. The award amount to each employee is almost $2000 at the end of every year and that is why some workers might react negatively about cutting awards for raised pay. As a consumer, I am shocked that this company has bad reviews from employees in the workplace.


Kantor, Jodi, and David Streitfeld. “Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Aug. 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html?_r=2.

Kim, Eugene. “Amazon’s Hourly Workers Lose Monthly Bonuses and Stock Awards as Minimum Wage Increases.” CNBC, CNBC, 4 Oct. 2018, http://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/amazon-hourly-workers-lose-monthly-bonuses-stock-awards.html.




Employees find distributive justice in positive reinforcement. Case in point, a recent survey among employees in a senior living facility based in Houston, TX shows that the employees who are rewarded have more positive engagement with the residents in the facility. The facility offers the employees funds for training. This has proven to increases employee satisfaction and has increased the retention of the employees. The benefits have given the facility a great return on investment. One way is the increased satisfaction from the residents as well as their families. The article does not go into more detail however, one could assume the return of investment additionally comes with not having to hire and train new staff quite as often. More detail may have also revealed that there is an obligated time of service for training received at the expense of the facility, which would lower the rate of turnover. With the rise in the cost of student loans and college tuition, this would be a desirable approach to maintain and gain further training.
On the other hand, the facility may not have a great retention without this sort of incentive. An employee may find justice in leaving the position by finding a position elsewhere that does have the benefits of paid training or other incentives such as time off, monetary awards, etc.
As a supervisor, I have found that making employees happy by offering praise, bonuses to include cash and time off has definitely helped to retain quality employees even in the entry level positions, which are the most difficult to retain. The cost of offering rewards far outweighs the cost of having the position vacant.




I found an article on the Flint Michigan Water Crisis that talks about the injustices that has happened in the handling of this crisis. After reading the article and thinking about what I would have done, and I would have done some things differently.

Distributive Justice
The community feels like it was treated unfairly. The government was very slow to respond to the situation and even denied there being a problem to start with. Once the government admitted there was a problem they were very slow to act. This is something that I would have changed right off, be fast to act. Even if they did not think there was a problem, they should have at least sent scientists to test the water to see if there was an actual problem. Once they got the tests back and realize that there is a problem they should have started coming up with solutions right away instead of dragging their feet.

Procedural Justice
The community feels like they were wronged in this category also. The crisis managers that were assigned to this crisis were not elected by the community, do not have to report to the community, and do not live in the community. The townspeople feel like this is really wrong since they are the ones forced to live with the decisions of the managers, who do not suffer the consequences of their decisions. Personally I would have had at least two representatives from the town act as managers. This would have kept the townspeople happy and gave the managers direction on some of the tough decisions that they will have to make.

Erickson, J. (2018, October 19). Flint water crisis: Most egregious example of environmental injustice, says U-M researcher. Retrieved October 20, 2018, from https://news.umich.edu/flint-water-crisis-most-egregious-example-of-environmental-injustice-says-u-m-researcher/



Actually, let’s do this. I can’t remember how frequently WordPress does spam bin dumps so just to be safe (copy pasted from the spammed post):

I think that the recent implementation of a $15 minimum wage for Amazon workers is a good example of distributive justice in the workplace in multiple ways. The pay increase was a reaction to pay disparity initially (a form on pay inequality), but a removal of secondary bonus programs also accompanied the increase leading some workers to feel it created an entirely new imbalance. Both situations are examples of a feeling of distributive injustice among employees.

The Amazon situation in summary:

Back in May, the first report disclosing ratios of CEO pay to median worker pay was released as result of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms of 2015 aimed at more transparent pay disclosures in American business (SEC, Horowitz, 2018).

Many were shocked to find America’s so-called richest man, CEO of Amazon, Jeff Bezos made $1.6M last year while the median wage of his workers was a mere $28,446—meaning every 9 seconds he made the equivalent of a year’s wages for his average employee (Glum, 2018). Not surprisingly, this quickly made Amazon the target of recent pay disparity movements.

In reaction to this, Amazon announced they were raising the minimum wage of their US employees to $15 an hour and would likewise be pushing for a federally mandated hike across the nation. At the same time, they quietly eliminated monthly bonus and stock option incentives for those same employees (Dani, 2018).

Employees who typically saw large bonuses during the holiday season, naturally, weren’t amused by the bait-and-switch stating that the minimum wage increase actually decreases their annual income with the loss of bonuses.

Essentially, Amazon placated the media while doing nothing to actually rectify the distributive injustice being done to their workforce.

As far as my in-his-shoes-take, I feel that the minimum wage raise was a reasonably response—without the bonus/stock incentive cuts. To help reduce pay disparity, you kind of have to pay your workers more not just give the appearance that you will. Amazon, in my opinion, did themselves a disservice by attempting to right a wrong by dressing up another wrong up as right.


Glum, Julia. (May, 2018). The Median Amazon Employee’s Salary Is $28,000. Jeff Bezos Makes More Than That in 10 Seconds. TIME Magazine online. Retrieved from:

Horowitz, Julia. (May, 2018) New Report Highlights Massive Pay Gap Between CEOs and Typical Workers. CNN news. Retrieved from:

Lee, Dani. (Oct, 2018) Amazon eliminates monthly bonuses and stock grants after minimum wage increase. The Verge. Retrieved from:

US Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC). (Aug 2015). SEC Adopts Rule for Pay Ratio Disclosure. Press Release. Retrieved from:



On October 17th, 2018 a Cleveland Police Officer was reinstated after an officer involved shooting in 2015 where he shot and killed an unarmed robbery suspect. (Link below.) Officer Jones and his partner were pursuing and attempting to arrest an unarmed robbery suspect on March 19, 2015 when a physical altercation broke out with the suspect, Jones, and his partner. After the shooting Jones was placed on administrative leave and was charged with negligent homicide. After the closing of judicial proceedings, the officer was acquitted of the charges in 2017.

This is an excellent example of procedural justice. Procedural justice is best defined as, “how”, outcomes are allocated versus distributive justice focuses on, “what”, outcomes are allocated. A good example of procedural justice is the judicial system. There was a concern with how the outcome was distributed to the officer and how that was fair to the suspect/victim. “How were the officer’s actions justified?”. Well, they were found to be justified on two seperate accounts. The officer was acquitted by the charges from the district attorney’s office. The officer was also given his job back from a separate investigation.

As a supervisor or manager of Officer Jones I would first make sure his well being was covered. I would then make sure proper departmental policy was in process to ensure Officer Jones was receiving fair treatment. I would also help Officer Jones by making sure he had legal consultation present before he answered any questions by the officer involved shooting team. Lastly, I would support Officer Jones through the future judicial process and ensure his paperwork was well written and included all pertinent and unarguable details.

“Fired Cleveland Police Officer Reinstated.” fox8.Com, 17 Oct. 2018, fox8.com/2018/10/17/fired-cleveland-police-officer-reinstated/.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *