Greenberg, (1987) linked motivational and cognitive processes particularly to the procedures of the organization. He postulated that perceptions of injustice in a given organization are the motivation behind both cognitive as well as behavioral change in an environment where procedures are perceived as terminal or as an end in themselves. In the event procedures are construed as means towards a given end procedural fairness perceptions per se are significantly less influential compared to perceptions of distributive justice.
What comes here is the fact that perceptions of justice’s motivational power are inextricably bound to personal goals. From this notion of procedural justice I suggest that interpersonal aspects of procedures have a large influence on the perceptions of procedural fairness. I state this basing on Tyler and Bies, (1999) five norms that were thought to contribute to procedural fairness perceptions. These norms define what procedural justice is. They include an adequate consideration of an employee’s point of view as well as the suppression of personal bias.
In addition there also is the need for a consistent application of similar criteria across all organizational personnel as well as the provision of feedback in a timely manner consequent to a decision. Lastly procedural justice calls for the provision of employees with adequate explanations for made decisions. Research spanning across five studies carried out by Eisenberger and Rhoades in (2001) established that repeated rewards to individuals for their creative behaviors consistently augmented the creative behaviors by the said individuals (college students, preadolescents as well as employees).
They also established that intrinsic interests in jobs were the major mediation for employee expectations to be rewarded for their creative performance in the work place. I concur with Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001) by identifying with their contention that their findings reflect other studies that established the fact that reward for high performance acts to inspire and motivate interest in tasks.
In this light, I bear witness of being motivated to work hard in given tasks at school as well as at home for in these tasks I was rewarded through compliments by my instructors or Gift cards from my parents. Procedural justice in this sense was adequately met for me as my point of view was adequately put in mind by my superiors (parents and teachers) whereupon they considered my emotional as well as human need for motivation and inspiration for work well done. I was inspired to work even harder and derive better results for consecutive tasks that were assigned to me.
From my above experiences, I have learnt that chances for intrinsic task motivation are heightened through reward by way of increased self determination. This results into enhanced creative behavior. Contrastingly, some studies have also shown that intrinsic interests can be undermined in the event an individual’s expectation to be rewarded is not perceived as contingent on performance which is tied to the element of instrumentality contended by Eisenberger, Pierce and Cameron, (1999) in their theory of Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy.
Additionally, some theorists have also postulated the criticality of control, self-determination as well as autonomy in the work place, aspects that act as a source of motivation and satisfaction. To conclude, it is worth noting the existence of a link between a performance-related pay-system and employee commitment. Procedural justice considers employees’ point of view opting to give them an ownership stake within the company in the form of stock as well as financial related incentives for instance profit shares or directly rewarding them for exemplary performance.
Despite the benefits derived from such a system, it is worth acknowledging how the use of performance-related pay systems is insufficient in increasing employee commitment whereupon under given circumstances it might act as a deterrent as it diminishes commitment. These may arise out of the fact that commitment in the work place by employees is sustained on a financial basis as opposed to psychological ownership.
References Eisenberger, R. , & Rhoades, L. (2001). “Incremental effects of reward on creativity. ” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81, pp 728-741 Eisenberger, R. , Pierce, W. D. , & Cameron, J. (1999). Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation: Negative, neutral, and positive. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 677-691. Greenberg, D. (1987) Free at Last. The Sudbury Valley School. Massachusetts. The Sudbury Valley School. Tyler, T. R. & Bies, R. J. (1999) “Beyond formal procedures: the interpersonal context of procedural justice. ” In J. S. Carroll (Ed. ), Applied social psychology and organizational settings. (5th ed. ) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.