组织公平感与员工忠诚度关系的实证研究以杭州物美超市为例外文翻译.docx

1、组织公平感与员工忠诚度关系的实证研究以杭州物美超市为例外文翻译外文翻译原文1：Progress in Organizational Justice:Tunneling Through the Maze Before starting this journey, it is important to specify our orientation. In keeping with social science tradition, our treatment of justice is completely descriptive in orientation-focusing on peopl

2、es perceptions of what constitutes fairness, and their reactions to unfair situations.This is in contrast to the large body of work in moral philosophy (e.g., for a review, see Cohen & Greenberg, 1982) which is inherently prescriptive, specifying what should be done to achieve justice (for more on t

3、his distinction, see Greenberg & Bies, 1992). As such, when organizational scientists talk about justice, they generally are referring to individual perceptions, ones evaluations as to the appropriateness of a given outcome or process. Thus, as the term is used here, justice is subjective as perceiv

4、ed by a person. . In general, the study of organizational justice has focused on two major issues: employees responses to the things they receivethat is, outcomes, and the means by which they obtain these outcomesthat is, procedures. It is almost tautological to claim that all allocation decisions a

5、re about outcomes. In fact, work settings may be characterized by the outcomes stemming from them. For example, performance appraisal results in some rating or ranking, a promotion decision culminates in a new job, a pay review results in a raise, a selection interview results in a hiring decision,

6、and so on. Of course, outcomes also can be negative as well as positive. For example, decisions are also made about how to punish a poor performer, and whom to terminate during cutbacks. Allocations result in a certain configuration or pattern whereby some individuals get more and others get less. I

7、ndividuals evaluations of these outcomes are referred to as judgments of distributive justice(Leventhal. 1976a). Although concerns about distributive justice are critical in organizations, and were the first form of justice to capture the attention of organizational scientists (see Greenberg. 1987a)

8、, they comprise only part of the story where organizational justice is concerned. Outcomes do not simply appear; they result from a specific set of process or procedures. For example, people may raise questions about their performance ratings, promotion decisions, pay raises, or selection decisions

9、were determined. Were these based on procedures that are themselves fair? As we will detail in this chapter, peoples perceptions of the fairness of the procedures used to determine allocationsreferred to as procedural justiceare of considerable importance in organizations. Indeed, there are many ben

10、efits that result from perceived fair procedures, and problems that result from perceived unfair procedures. Insofar as the concept of procedural justice was introduced into the study of organizations during a period in which interest in distributive justice was waning (Folger & Greenberg, 1985; Gre

11、enberg & Folger, 1983) it quickly became the center of attention among justice researchers (Greenberg & Tyler, 1987). Not surprisingly, contemporary empirical work has emphasized procedural justice. The balance of material in the present chapter reflects this trend: Although we review recent investi

12、gations of both types of fairness, proceduraI justice receives somewhat more attention. This skew reflects only the prevailing balance of attention in the literature, and not our judgment about their relative importance. Indeed, we have advocated the importance of both distributive and procedural ju

13、stice in our own work (e.g., Folger & Cropanzano, in press; Greenberg, 1996a). .Author: Russell Cropanzano & Jerald GreenbergNationality: USAOriginate from：International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychololgy, 1997译文1：组织公平的进步：隧道通过迷宫 这开始这篇论文之前，说明我们研究的方位，这是很重要的。根据适合社会科学的传统,我们对于公平的治疗方案是集中在

14、以人为本的观念所包含的内容公平和他们对于不公平反应的情况具有完全描述性的定位。与大型的作品在道德哲学（例如审查，可以参见科恩和格林伯格的作品，1982）比较，具有是内在规定性，能说明应如何实现公平（更多的是这个区别，参考格林伯格和毕斯，1992）。这样，当组织科学家谈论公平时，他们通常是指个人看法，一个人的评价，关于对一个给定的结果和过程是否恰当。因此，公平这个词在这里，是个人主观的感知。 .一般来说，组织公平的研究主要集中于两个主要问题：员工对于事情的反应得到的就是结果，他们获得这些结果的方式就是过程。这几乎是宣称所有分配决策是关于结果。事实上，可能是工作设置的特点导致从结果出发。例如，绩效

15、考核的结果决定一定等级和排序，晋升的决定会在一份新的工作体现，检讨结果决定加薪，面谈雇用决定结果，等等。当然，结果可能是负面也可能是积极的。例如，对一个表现不好的雇员如何惩罚，谁应该在裁员时被解雇等问题做出决定。分配导致一个特定的配置或模式，一些人得到得更多，其他一些人得到就更少了。对这些结果的单个评估的判断简称为分配正平。 正因为分配公平在企业中十分重要，并且作为公平的的第一种形式吸引组织科学家的关注(见格林伯格，1987)，但他们组成了只有部分的故事，是组织公平的一部分。结果并不是单单出现的，他们还源于一套特定的进程或程序。例如，人们可能会对他们的表现评级、晋升决策、加薪或者选择决策如何做

16、出等提出问题。这些是基于程序本身是公平的吗？正如我们将在本章中详细介绍的，人民对公平的分配使用程序确定称为程序公平，对于企业同样相当重要。实际上，由于知觉程序的公平可以带来很多好处，但当认为程序不公平时同样会出现很多问题。 在程序公平的概念被引入研究组织的一个时期，组织公平研究者对分配公平的关注渐缺（福尔杰和格林伯格，1985；福尔杰和格林伯格，1983），很快程序公平就成为万众瞩目的焦点（格林伯格和泰勒，1987）。毫不奇怪，现代的实证研究都强调了程序公平。这一章节材料的平衡反映出目前的趋势：虽然我们回顾了最近的调查的两种类型的公平，程序公平收到更多的关注。它只能反映现行文献上关注的平衡，而不是我们的判断它们的相对重要性。事实上，我们在我们自己的工作都提倡分配公平和程序公平的重要性。 .作者：罗素克瑞潘泽多和杰拉尔德格林伯格国籍：美国出处：国际审查工业与组织心理学,1997年原文2：UNTANGL