[雙語翻譯]薪酬滿意度外文翻譯--公正認(rèn)知和對薪酬滿意度組成部分的滿意度（英文）

1、Fairness perceptions and satisfaction with components of pay satisfactionI.M. Jawahar Department of Management Jawahar, 2007; Thurston and McNall, 2010), it is particularly important to compensation decisions, such as p

2、ay, pay raises and benefits. Indeed, perceived fairness of compensation, the procedures used to make compensation-related decisions, and the manner in which compensation-related information is communicated play an integr

3、al role in shaping reactions to critical elements of the compensation system (Milkovich and Newman, 2008; Nelson et al., 2008). Yet, the literatures on attitudinal reactions pertaining to compensation and fairness percep

4、tions have evolved independently (Williams et al., 2006). Even though most wouldThe current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htmComponents of pay satisfaction297

5、Received January 2010 Revised June 2010, July 2010 Accepted July 2010Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 26 No. 4, 2011 pp. 297-312 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0268-3946 DOI 10.1108/02683941111124836Justice perc

6、eptions Early research on fairness addressed the fairness of the distribution of outcomes (e.g., pay). Research on distributive justice has established that the fairness of outcomes (Adams, 1965) significantly affects pe

7、ople’s attitudes. A decade later, Thibaut and Walker (1975) introduced the construct of procedural justice. Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the procedures used to decide outcomes (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut an

8、d Walker, 1975). Early research focused on the structural aspects of procedures (e.g., voice opportunities, consistency), and demonstrated the importance of procedural fairness to human resource management processes incl

9、uding performance appraisal (Greenberg, 1986) and selection (Gilliland, 1994). Bies and Moag (1986) introduced the construct of “interactional justice” to examine the “social side of justice.” Some researchers who adhere

10、 to the relational model of justice treat interactional justice as a component of procedural justice (Tyler and Blader, 2000; Tyler and Lind, 1992). Others treat it as a third form of justice, independent of procedural a

11、nd distributive justice (Bies, 2001; Bies and Moag, 1986). According to Bies and Moag, interactional justice consists of two elements:(1) informational justice–whether the reasons underlying the resource allocation decis

12、ionareclearly,truthfully,andadequatelyexplainedtotheaffectedparties;and(2) interpersonal justice – whether those responsible for implementing the decision treat the affected individuals with dignity and respect. Greenber

13、g (1993, 1994) suggested that interpersonal justice primarily alters reactions to decision outcomes because supervisor sensitivity can make people feel better about an unfavorable outcome.Informational justice primarily

14、alters reactions to procedures as explanations provide the information needed to evaluate structural aspects of the process. Colquitt (2001) tested Greenberg’s assertion and found support for a four-factor model in two s

15、eparate samples. Consistent with Greenberg’s (1993) proposal, Colquitt identified distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice as the four factors comprising the construct of

16、 organizational justice (see also Ambrose, 2002; Bies, 2001; Judge and Colquitt, 2004; Jawahar, 2007; Kernan and Hanges, 2002; Thurston and McNall, 2010).Integration and hypotheses development Distributive justice and sa

17、tisfaction with pay components Research on distributive justice has established that fairness of outcomes (Adams, 1965; Greenberg, 1988) is very important to people and that distributive justice is related to person or i

18、ndividual-referenced outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001; Folger and Konovsky, 1989; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992; Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993). Satisfaction with pay level and satisfaction with pay raises are person-referenced

19、 outcomes. Previous studies reportedapositiverelationshipbetweendistributivejusticeandsatisfactionwithpaylevel (e.g. Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Miceli and Mulvey, 2000). The Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) meta-an

20、alysis found distributive justice more highly correlated (weighted mean correlations 0.62 v.0.48) with pay satisfaction than procedural justice. Tremblay, et al. (2000) measured distributive justice with regard to pay br