functional distance is the “degree of closeness and quality of functional working relationship between the supervisor and the subordinate”.
“These types of distance influence an individual’s motivation, ability, and opportunity to exhibit OCB. For example, when structural distance is high, an employee has infrequent contact with others in the organization, the physical distance between them is great, and so the opportunity to engage in some forms of OCB (e.g. helping, voice, sportsmanship) is less than when structural distance is low. Similarly, when psychological distance is high because the employee has little demographic, cultural, or value similarity to others in the organization, the employee has less motivation or less ability to exhibit …show more content…
“These managers are confusing outcome favourability with outcome justice that is also connected with the intrinsically satisfying nature of the task determined by the fairness in task autonomy, significance, feedback, identity, variety, task interdependence and goal interdependence. The outcome favourability is a judgment of personal worth or value whereas outcome justice is a judgment of moral propriety. Evidence shows that outcome justice and outcome favourability is distinct (Skitka, Winquist, & Hutchinson, 2003). It is useful to consider the reasons justice matters to people (Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, …show more content…
Distributive, procedural, and interactional justices tend to be correlated. They are meaningfully treated as three components of overall fairness (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Ambrose & Schminke, 2007) and the three components can work together. However, each component is arising from different managerial actions. Distributive Justice deals with the allocations or outcomes that some get and others do not. It is further concerned with the reality that not all workers are treated alike; the allocation of outcomes is differentiated in the workplace. Individuals are concerned with whether or not they received their “just share.” Sometimes things are distributively just, “when the most qualified person gets promoted and at other times they are not, when advancement goes to corporate “insiders” with a political relationship to upper
“These types of distance influence an individual’s motivation, ability, and opportunity to exhibit OCB. For example, when structural distance is high, an employee has infrequent contact with others in the organization, the physical distance between them is great, and so the opportunity to engage in some forms of OCB (e.g. helping, voice, sportsmanship) is less than when structural distance is low. Similarly, when psychological distance is high because the employee has little demographic, cultural, or value similarity to others in the organization, the employee has less motivation or less ability to exhibit …show more content…
“These managers are confusing outcome favourability with outcome justice that is also connected with the intrinsically satisfying nature of the task determined by the fairness in task autonomy, significance, feedback, identity, variety, task interdependence and goal interdependence. The outcome favourability is a judgment of personal worth or value whereas outcome justice is a judgment of moral propriety. Evidence shows that outcome justice and outcome favourability is distinct (Skitka, Winquist, & Hutchinson, 2003). It is useful to consider the reasons justice matters to people (Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, …show more content…
Distributive, procedural, and interactional justices tend to be correlated. They are meaningfully treated as three components of overall fairness (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Ambrose & Schminke, 2007) and the three components can work together. However, each component is arising from different managerial actions. Distributive Justice deals with the allocations or outcomes that some get and others do not. It is further concerned with the reality that not all workers are treated alike; the allocation of outcomes is differentiated in the workplace. Individuals are concerned with whether or not they received their “just share.” Sometimes things are distributively just, “when the most qualified person gets promoted and at other times they are not, when advancement goes to corporate “insiders” with a political relationship to upper