Organizational powerlessness, dehumanization, and gendered effects of procedural justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test whether procedural justice effects on organizational powerlessness and dehumanization are stronger for women than men and, consequently, mediated effects on turnover intention are conditional upon gender. Design/methodology/approach – The authors recruited to a two-wave survey of workplace attitudes with flyers distributed at downtown subway exits. The authors controlled for and tested alternative models for distributive and interpersonal justice. Findings – Gender moderated procedural justice effects on both mediators. The moderated mediation model held only for organizational dehumanization, even controlling for powerlessness. Models for distributive and interpersonal justice were not significant. Research limitations/implications – The authors used cross-sectional, self-report data but separated predictor and criterion variables in two surveys to counteract common method bias. Nevertheless, causal inferences are limited. Practical implications – To retain personnel, managers, and organizations should be aware of the different needs of their employees and corresponding effects of justice. Likewise, women should be diligent in assessing justice and their response to being treated fairly. Social implications – The model is not predicated on an innate quality of gender but on endemic inequities in society. Procedural justice is associated with basic human needs, and effects that are conditional on gender may be socially constructed rather than based in supposed inherent gender differences. Originality/value – Research and lay theories have emphasized that women value procedural justice because of inherently stronger relational needs. The findings suggest gendered effects are due to broader social conditions affecting women’s instrumental and existential needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".