Procedural Justice Scale

Abstract

The Procedural Justice scale is a psychometric instrument developed by Folger and Konovsky (1989) designed to assess employee perceptions of fairness regarding the processes used in organizational decision-making, particularly concerning performance appraisal and pay raise determinations. The comprehensive version of the measure consists of 23 items organized into four primary subscales: the effectiveness of supervisor feedback (11 items), the extent of careful planning involved in the decision process (six items), the availability of employee recourse or appeal after a decision (five items), and the degree of supervisor observation of performance (one item). A shorter, eight-item version of the scale has also been utilized in subsequent research (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999), focusing on process characteristics such as consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, representation, and adherence to ethical standards.

Keywords

procedural justice, organizational justice, performance appraisal, employee feedback, fairness, pay raise decisions, organizational behavior, recourse, planning, organizational commitment

Authors

Folger, R., Konovsky, M.A.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Procedural Justice scale is to quantitatively measure the extent to which employees perceive the procedures used by management—specifically supervisors—in making decisions about their performance evaluations and subsequent pay raises as fair and equitable. This assessment is critical for understanding organizational climate and predicting behavioral outcomes such as job satisfaction and retaliation.

The scale allows researchers and practitioners to differentiate between general perceptions of fairness and specific elements of the process, such as the quality of communication (feedback) and the opportunities for employee voice or appeal (recourse).

Construct

The scale measures the construct of procedural justice, a core component of organizational justice theory. Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the means, mechanisms, and processes used to arrive at a distribution of outcomes, regardless of whether the final outcome itself is perceived as fair (which is measured by distributive justice). Folger and Konovsky’s measure specifically operationalizes these procedures within the context of human resource decisions.

The subscales capture distinct dimensions relevant to procedural fairness in a supervisory context: the quality of interpersonal treatment (often overlapping with interactive justice), the formal structure of decision-making (planning and observation), and mechanisms for correction (recourse).

Validity

Empirical evidence supports the construct and criterion validity of the Procedural Justice scale. Studies indicate strong positive correlations between procedural justice perceptions and several key organizational outcomes, including distributive justice, interactive justice, pay satisfaction, trust in management, bonus amounts, and employee organizational commitment. Additionally, interactive justice, a related construct measured by certain subscales, correlated positively with organizational citizenship behaviors and participation (Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997).

Conversely, procedural justice correlated negatively with detrimental behaviors such as negative affectivity and retaliatory behavior (Lee & Farh, 1999; Skarlicki et al., 1999). Confirmatory factor analysis has further demonstrated the discriminant validity of the construct, showing that procedural justice is empirically distinct from related concepts such as various types of social power, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Mossholder, Bennett, Kemery, & Wesolowski, 1998).

Reliability

The Procedural Justice scale exhibits high levels of internal consistency across its various formats and subscales. For the full 23-item measure, coefficient alpha values consistently ranged from .93 to .95 (Lee & Farh, 1999), indicating excellent reliability. The reliability of the specific subscales is also strong:

• Coefficient alpha for the Feedback subscale ranged from .90 to .94.
• Coefficient alpha for the Interactive Justice subscale was .88.
• Coefficient alpha for the Planning subscale was .86.

The shortened, eight-item version of the scale also demonstrated high internal consistency, reporting a coefficient alpha of .88 (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Furthermore, the stability of the measure over time was confirmed by a test-retest reliability coefficient of .84 reported for the Feedback subscale (Skarlicki & Latham, 1997).

Factor Analysis

The original 23-item scale is structured around four empirically derived factors, or subscales, reflecting specific elements of procedural fairness in the context of performance management. These factors are: Feedback, Planning, Recourse, and Observation. This factor structure suggests that employees differentiate between the communicative aspects, preparation, appeals process, and supervisory monitoring when judging procedural fairness.

The alternative eight-item measure, often employed in subsequent studies, represents a unidimensional factor focusing on the formal rules governing procedures, emphasizing attributes like consistency, accuracy, and ethical compliance. While confirmatory analyses (Mossholder et al., 1998) support the distinctiveness of the overall procedural justice construct, the underlying factor structure varies depending on the specific items utilized by the researcher.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychometric scale

Format: 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = very little, 9 = very much)

Language Available: Primarily English (Original development)

Population Group: Employees/Organizational personnel

Age Group: Adult working population

Population Details: Applicable to employees subject to formal performance appraisal and compensation decisions within an organizational setting.

Test Methodology: Survey methodology administered to assess subjective perceptions of supervisory fairness following key organizational decisions (e.g., pay raise decisions).

Keywords

organizational fairness, employee commitment, retaliatory behavior, social power, job satisfaction, supervisor feedback, Likert scale, psychometrics, human resources, organizational justice theory

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not available in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not available in source)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not available in source)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed in 1989. Items were originally published in the Academy of Management Journal. Reproduction of the items for subsequent use requires permission from the Academy of Management, as noted in the source documentation, which states: “Reproduced with permission of Academy of Management in the format textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.” Users should seek current permissions for research or commercial use.

Reference’s

• Folger, R., & Konovsky, M.A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130.
• Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 421-447.
• Lee, C., & Farh, J. L. (1999). Procedural justice as a moderator of the relationship between pay raise and job performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(3), 209-222.
• Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., Kemery, E. R., & Wesolowski, M. A. (1998). Relationships between procedural justice, distributive justice, and social exchange in a study of pay fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(1), 1-14.
• Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434-443.
• Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Effects of organizational justice on retaliatory behaviors and withdrawal behaviors in response to perceived unfairness. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 556-567.
• Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434-443.

Items of the Procedural Justice scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Responses are obtained using a 9-point Likert-type scale where 1 = very lit­tle and 9 = very much.

Feedback items:

Indicate the extent to which your supervisor did each of the following:

1. Was honest and ethical in dealing with you.
2. Gave you an opportunity to express your side.
3. Used consistent standards in evaluating your performance.
4. Considered your views regarding your performance.
5. Gave you feedback that helped you learn how well you were doing
6. Was completely candid and frank with you
7. Showed a real interest in trying to be fair
8. Became thoroughly familiar with your performance
9. Took into account factors beyond your control
10. Got input from you before a recommendation
11. Made clear what was expected of you

Planning items:

12. Discussed plans or objectives to improve your performance

Indicate how much of an opportunity existed, after your last raise decision, for you to do each of the following things:

13. Review, with your supervisor, objectives for improvement
14. With your supervisor, resolve difficulties about your duties and responsibilities

Indicate the extent to which your supervisor did each of the following:

15. Obtained accurate information about your performance
16. Found out how well you thought you were doing your job
17. Asked for your ideas on what you could do to improve company performance

Recourse items:

Indicate how much of an opportunity existed, after your last raise decision, for you to do each of the following things:

18. Find out why you got the size of raise that you did
19. Make an appeal about the size of a raise
20. Express your feelings to your supervisor about salary decisions
21. Discuss, with your supervisor, how your performance was evaluated
22. Develop, with your supervisor, an action plan for future performance

Observation item:

Indicate the extent to which your supervisor did each of the following:

23. Frequently observed your performance.