Graso, M., Camps, J., Strah, N., & Brebels, L.

（2020）

This research paper have both academic and practical contribution. From an academic perspective, it synthesized previous literature on the motivation of agents to enact justice in workplace, as well as the
consequences of justice enactment, and it also suggested many directions for future research, which would surely improve the diversity of justice literature. From the practical perspective, the research findings
would help both manager and their subordinates develop a deeper understanding of the specific types of incentives behind justice enactment decisions, and therefore they can adjust their behaviors in the way
that cultivates a justice workplace by increasing both quality and quantity of justice enactment facilitators (agents’ and targets’ favorable traits, clear goals and objectives, as well as merit and need-based
allocation systems) and minimize barriers (negative trickle-down effects, inadequate self-regulatory resources, and cheating behaviors).

Agents' Motivation to enact justice

Deontological motives Agents are motivated to enact justice because of their moral mindset and moral identity.

Instrumental motives Agents are motivated to enact justice because such enactment will produce favourable outcomes that they expect and value.

Relational motives Agents are motivated to enact justice because they expect to achieve their goals through improved social exchange ties.

Agents' motivations for justice enactment are fluid and changing, because there are tensions between these justice enactment motives and
other occupational forces. While some researchers believe that agents enact justice for the sake of eliciting compliance and other expected
The transitory nature of enactment
behaviors (cognitive motive), others argue agents enact justice as an end in itself which is purely out of their moral identity to create an
environment of justice (affective motive).

Consequences (costs & benefits) for agent

Cost 1 Justice enactment could deplete agents' both tangible and intangible resources.
Cost 2 Resources depletion could lead to negative results such as reduced OCB.
Cost 3 Justice enactment forces agents to deliver more unpleasant and bad news.
Justice enactment may cause unintended consequences to agents from minority backgrounds, because they may receive biases from their
Cost 4
targets.
Benefit 1 Interpersonal justice enactment is very helpful for introverted and neurotic agents
Agents who are successful in applying procedural or interpersonal justice during teamwork settings experienced improved psychological
Benefit 2
benefits.

Facilitators and barriers for justice enactment

Facilitator 1 - agents' personal traits Agents high in interpersonal orientation tend to cultivate good relationships with targets in accordance with their moral values

Facilitator 2 - targets' personal traits (charisma & ingratiation)
Facilitator 3 - targets' trustworthiness
Facilitator 4 - targets' belongingness needs
Facilitator 5 - targets' behavior
Facilitator 6 -clear work and organizational objectives
Facilitator 7 -merit and need-based allocation systems
Barrier 1 - the trickle-down effects
Barrier 2 - availability of self-regulatory resources
Barrier 3 - cheating behaviors
Current knowledge gaps/future research directions
The link between agent’s motivates and justice enactment
The impact of justice enactment on vocational development
Charismatic targets elicit more positive and less negative sentiments from their agent, which ultimately leads to increased interpersonal justice;
agents adhere more closely to justice principles towards employees who engage in ingratiation behavior towards them, as opposed to targets
who do not. Essentially, these employees frequently praise their supervisors for their accomplishments, take interest in their personal life,
complete personal favors for them, or engage in other impression-management behaviors.
An important element of forming solid leader-member relationships is trust which is a promising antecedent to justice enactment.
Agents tend to give more voice and are seen as more procedural fair when their targets have high belonging needs.
Agents show higher levels of justice enactment towards those subordinates who exhibit higher compliance, helping behavior, and performance.
Setting justice goals that highlight the importance of clear work and organizational objectives (as potential implicit and contextual
factors) can enhance an agent's justice enactment.
Participants adhered to classic principles of distributive justice by making allocation decisions based on merit, equality, or need.
If the agent perceives that their own superior treats them unfairly, it will lead to a lower interactional justice climate among the focal agent's
subordinates.
The lack of self-regulatory resources due to numerous daily work demands not only compromise agents’ ability to act fairly, but it also limits
their ability to accurately evaluate the fairness of their behaviors.
Employees' cheating behaviors impact a justice agent's ability to act in a fair manner.
This current study raises the question as to whether the justice enactment literature has really addressed agents' relational motives thus far;
the prevalence and impact of the different motives in agents' self-regulation towards justice enactment still remains to be systematically tested;
future research can award additional attention to contexts in which an agent's moral identity or value-expression is sufficient or even crucial to
enact justice despite the potential competing demands they face.
Future study may explore how justice enactment allows agents to shape their own vocations, both in the short and long term; Another area that
can potentially inspire future research on this matter is the literature on OCBs; future research on justice enactment is energized by these
insights and awards sufficient attention to investigating whether or when justice enactment benefits an agent's career (e.g., in terms of salary
increases, career advancement); Another area that might be helpful in unraveling the career implications of justice enactment is the theorizing
on implicit leadership.
 Another area that warrants further investigation concerns the impact of justice enactment on agents' well-being, and a crucial task for future
research lies in discovering how the enactment of justice affects agents' own well-being, both in the long-term and in the short-term; Another
The impact of justice enactment on agents’ well-being
direction for future research involves investigating whether the impact of justice enactment on agents varies as a function of agent
characteristics as well as the context in which justice enactment occurs.

Future research may explore the impact of a culturally diverse workplace on agents’ justice enactment decisions; furthermore, researchers may
also study how national culture affects the manner in which justice agents decide what is fair, how agents treat targets with internalized norms
The impact of cultural differences on justice enactment
that are different from their own, how national culture implicitly guides agents' justice behaviors, and which contextual factors guide agents
towards acting in a way that is synchronous with their host or native culture.

The investigation of justice enactment from a cross-cultural perspective is an area ripe for research, and a fascinating area for future exploration
lies in the changing nature of morality within our own cultures. Since scholars of morality argue that there is evidence that Western cultures,
The impact of culture of harm-avoidance on justice enactment
particularly North America, are starting to prioritize harm-avoidance over fairness or other facets of morality. Thus the impact of the harm
avoidance culture on justice enactment is to be investigated.
My critical reflection and thoughts

1. Insights gained from the research methodology applied in this research article:

Since the nature of this article is a comprehensive literature review of previous empirical work, aiming at consolidating those fragmented findings to propose a comprehensive framework, I may apply this review
methodology to my own research design for the 20-page research proposal assignment of this course. Using a similar review methodology and framework, I need to summarize the current findings on
compensation literature by addressing two underlying questions: (1) Do poorly designed executive compensation system (overly generous compensation packages vs excessively stingy packages) always lead to
accounting fraud? (2) What factors (internal and external) facilitate or impede executives from committing accounting fraud? Then, after reviewing relevant articles collected from Concordia’s library database, I
would develop a framework that consolidate causes and effects factors from those articles, and use headings and sub-headings to compare and contrast the relationships derived from those articles. This
comparing and contrasting process would enable me to identify inconsistencies within the existing literature so as to propose directions for future research and explorations. Essentially, the most valuable
takeaway I obtained from reviewing this research paper is understanding the ways in which knowledge gaps/inconsistencies can be identify from current academic literature and future research directions can be
derived from critical analyses/consolidations of those inconsistencies/knowledge fragments.

2. Insights gained from the content delivered in this research article:

The article suggests that the personality traits of both agents/managers and targets/subordinates have significant impacts on justice enactments. This idea reminds me of the idea of investigating the impacts of
dark triad and dark empathy personality traits on justice enactments. Since all articles reviewed in this paper assume the typical population, initiating study of the non-typical population (dark triad and dark
empathy people) would yield brand new insights on the impact of leadership personality and leadership styles on justice enactment behaviors. Some research questions may include:

 Would leaders with dark triad and dark empathy personality traits facilitate or impede justice enactments?
 How subordinates with dark triad and dark empathy personality traits perceive and respond to justice enactments?
 Are justice enactments even possible and realistic in organizations with high concentration of dark triad and dark empathy employees? Such as military service departments and legal firms?
Le, H., Johnson, C. P., & Fujimoto, Y. (2020)

This research contributes to academic literature through investigation of the difference between managers’ and female
employees’ perception towards organizational justice. The study uses a qualitative research approach and collected
primary data from managers and their subordinates. Two research questions are examined and answered:

First question
Female employees' perception
Male managers' perception
What are female employees’ and managers’ perceptions of climate for inclusion
through the lens of organizational justice?
Negative overall. They mentioned many negative justice experiences in fair
employment practices, involvement in decision-making processes, and the integration
of differences.
Positive overall. They tend to emphasize positive justice experiences, with only a few
negative perceptions regarding performance review processes.

How might female employees’ and managers’ perceptions of climate for

Second question
Female employees' perception
Male managers' perception
inclusion influence employee voice?
Negative overall. They were reluctant to speak up about unfavorable work practices,
whereas others felt that expressing voice did not provide a different outcome; hence,
women tended to accept the status quo.
Positive overall. Managers did not mention any issues regarding voice, while one
believed that female employees were encouraged to voice and their views were taken
into account.

Essentially, the findings have revealed that managers have very different perceptions regarding workplace inclusiveness
(話語權). Female workers perceived their lack of power and influence in their workplace. Therefore, these findings
suggest a compelling need to promote the climate for inclusion in organizations to empower all employees participate in
decision-making process and sharing their opinions regarding fair employment practices under different circumstances
and within various contexts.

My critical reflection and thoughts

1.Insights gained from the research methodology applied in this research article:

This study collected primary research data from multi-sources though focus groups and interviews improves both the
internal and external validity of its research findings. I realize that this type of qualitative research design is very suitable
for studies that intend to obtain detailed understanding of something intangible and difficult-to-measure, such as human
perception. By conducting semi-structured focus groups and flexible interviews, the researchers are able to get the
intangibles on paper for detailed comparisons and analyses. As such, when I attempt to study the causes and effects of
certain motives and perceptions on accounting decisions, I may also consider to arrange focus group and interviews to
obtain detailed insights behind those decisions so as to improve the accuracy and completeness of my interpretations of
the findings derived from statistical n models.

2.Insights gained from the content delivered in this research article:

I would like to challenge the essential assertion delivered by this article: promoting climate for inclusion in organizations is
beneficial and should be supported.

My question is: Do inclusiveness and diversity always lead to better organization outcomes (improved job satisfaction and
productivity, better financial performance, and reduced turnovers and job-related stress) in any industry and within any
cultural context?

As far as I know, if some cultural context, where gender discrimination is a commonplace and diversity is discouraged,
there are still many successful organizations. A good example is many successful Japanese companies where the upper
level management teams are dominated by males, and diversity is seriously discouraged, whereas homogeneity/like-
mindedness and sometimes even blind compliance with authority and seniority is the widely-accepted and unquestionable
norm.