Winter 2018

Newsletter Editor: Manfred Schmitt (


  • News from the President
  • Justice-Related Conferences
  • Awards to ISJR Members
  • Justice-Related Grants
  • Job Openings
  • Justice Related Books
  • Justice-Related Special Journal Issue (Journal of Organizational Behavior)
  • Recent Justice-Related Publications of ISJR Members
  • ISJR Membership and Listserv


News from the President

Dear ISJR members,


This is my first Newsletter contribution as ISJR President. I thought I would use this opportunity to reflect on what we're doing as an organization and consider how some of our efforts in studying social justice can be used.


This past July, many of us gathered in Atlanta, Georgia for the ISJR biennial conference, held under the theme "Interrogating Justice." The remarkable feature about this and, in fact, all ISJR conferences is the sheer number of people who spontaneously say how much they enjoy the entirety of the conferences - the papers, the people, the intellectual and collegial atmosphere. I think we're all in agreement that the Atlanta conference was outstanding, punctuated by engaging keynote speakers, Bernard Lafayette, Kimberly Jacob Arriola, and Jan Willem van Prooijen.


The Atlanta conference AGM saw our President and Treasurer, Jan Willem and Rosalind Chow, each step down after completing their terms; both, of course, deserve a huge thanks from all of us for all of their efforts. I then stepped in as President. But more importantly, Elizabeth Mullen took over the reins as Treasurer, Thomas Schlosser agreed to continue serving as Secretary, and Manfred Schmitt also agreed to continue serving as our Newsletter Editor - thanks to you all! And, of course, thank you to Karen Hegtvedt and her team for hosting the conference itself. Conference organization is always a considerable amount of work, but we're all definitely grateful for how fantastic it was.


At the AGM we also discussed potential new initiatives to support the purpose of the Society, such as small grants to support justice-related meetings/workshops and student projects/travel, as well as up-dating the ISJR webpage. These are projects that we agreed I would look into, which I will be doing in the coming months.


Of the academic presentations at the conference, it would be wrong for me to single out those I personally enjoyed the most. At the same time, I do think it worthy to point out one of the posters presented by people from the conference host institution, Emory University. I point it out because of the effect it has had on me, and my desire to encourage all of our members to consider pursuing a similar venture. I'm speaking specifically about the Emory University Certificate Program in Social Justice. As I understand the structure, this is a series of short-courses for people from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds constructed with the goal of not only teaching justice theory, but justice practice. To be honest, I had never come across something like this previously, but returned to my home institution motivated to develop our own (or similar) version.


There is no question that all members of ISJR are passionate about the pursuit of justice. And none of us doubts the relevance of our collective efforts both to theory and to practice. Our conferences and publications are of the highest international quality. Many of us are engaged in translating our work into practice - but, not all of us, and that includes me. For those of us working primarily in academic institutions, development of programs like the Certificate Program in Social Justice can be a viable - and, ultimately, impactful - way for us to have our collective efforts translated into practice. Indeed, enhanced understandings of justice now seem to be high on people’s desires, as noted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s choice of “justice” as the 2018 word of the year. People search the word not simply to know its spelling and meaning, but to understand the principles and philosophy behind it.


So, between now and our next conference, I'd encourage as many people as possible to see what types of programs can reasonably be instituted at their universities to educate and train people across all disciplines for the practice of social justice. Maybe many such programs already exist, and I'm simply showing my naiveté; if so, you may want to pass on the titles of these programs (and host institutions) to Manfred for reporting in our next Newsletter. But I still encourage us all to see what progress we can make in our developing similar educational programs.


The final note I want to make is simply to remind everyone to keep 2020 open for our next conference. David Patient at Catolica University, Lisbon, Portugal, has kindly and enthusiastically agreed to lead a team to host our next conference. At this point, the proposed dates of the conference are 7 - 10 July, 2020, but keep a watch on our announcements, as these are only proposed dates at this time. Thank you, David, in advance, for the work you'll be putting into our next conference.


I hope everyone has an enjoyable holiday season! For us here in the Southern Hemisphere, it's summer. Our academic year has just ended, and we're all looking forward to some quiet time.



Michael Platow

ISJR President

Justice-Related Conferences

Traversing the Ridge: Connecting Menstrual Research and Advocacy

23rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research

June 6-8, 2019, Colorado College, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA


With the theme of high traverses we embrace an interdisciplinary, feminist approach to research and advocacy as we bring together our efforts to improve menstrual and reproductive health and justice as they relate to overall well-being.


To highlight current research, advocacy, and to identify future work to be done, our 2019 conference welcomes participation from:

  • researchers 
  • scholars and academics  
  • health care professionals and clinicians  
  • public policy advocates 
  • NGOs and international agencies 
  • public health and school educators  
  • writers  
  • students
  • artists
  • advocates
  • activists
  • others interested in the menstrual cycle, reproductive and women’s health

Please consider submitting proposals for presentations that relate to one or more of these topics. However, if your work addresses another topic, don’t hesitate to submit a proposal to present that work. There are opportunities that will showcase the expansive nature of the SMCR scholarship, advocacy, and reach.


Below are some suggestions that you might consider as you frame your submission, but this is by no means an exhaustive list:

  • Evidence-based policy work
  • Menarcheal, menstrual, and menopausal activism and research on activism
  • Menarche-, menstruation-, and menopause-related health, illness, function, dysfunction, and well-being (such as ovulation, fertility, endometriosis, reproductive cancers, PCOS, perinatal period)
  • Menstrual and reproductive health across locations both global and local
  • Menstrual and reproductive health needs of underserved populations
  • Menstrual and reproductive health education 
  • Menstruation and economics/capitalism 
  • Menstrual resistance, art, and aesthetics 
  • Critiquing, challenging misinformation on the menstrual cycle and reproductive wellness
  • Translation of research and advocacy or activism
  • Broadening of reproductive health and justice
  • Differing types of advocacy such as education, law, politics, writing, and public presence

This year we aim to feature a variety of presentation formats for a conference that reflects the great diversity of menstrual cycle work in the research, teaching, advocacy, activism, and artistic arenas:


Paper proposals: are for individual oral presentations for discussion that will be grouped thematically in sessions as space allows.


Panel/symposium proposals: are theme-based oral sessions lasting approximately one hour and a half, consisting of three to four papers. We encourage submissions of organized panels complete with theme/topic, paper presenters, and order of the talks; please include a chair and optional discussant. 


Poster presentations: are formats that allow for extended discussion of the presentation with the author(s).


Workshops: are intended as training and/or information sessions. Submissions should include the workshop title, the problem or expertise addressed, an outline of the proposed content, any specific “take-aways” participants should expect, and the time allotment desired.


Roundtables: are discussions that focus on a specific topic or theme that could include, but are not limited to, debates on syllabi, jobs and the market, different types of advocacy, vulnerable populations, or issues of translation. This style works best for open discussion and should include audience participation, as well.


Education Curricula/Activities: If you have implemented a successful menstrual education curriculum or activity, we hope you will share it with others. Please consider sending your curriculum/activity for posting on the SMCR website along with an informational cover sheet.


Abstracts should be submitted through Google forms at: by January 7th, 2019. Posters will be accepted on a rolling basis until March 1st, 2019. Personally identifying information will be removed from submission before review.


We have made affordability a priority and will be providing lower costs for registration and housing for those with limited means. We look forward to seeing you in June 2019!


We have made affordability a priority and will be providing lower costs for registration and housing for those with limited means. We look forward to seeing you in June 2019!


View Conference Website

Tomi-Ann Roberts, PhD, Professor of Psychology

President, Society for Menstrual Cycle Research

14 E. Cache La Poudre St.
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903  


6th International Workshop on Insights in Organizational Justice and Behavioral Ethics


Call for papers

Justice Enactment – “Doing Justice” in Organizations



EBS Business School, Germany, June 5-7, 2019


Keynote Speakers

Suzanne Masterson, Carl H. Lindner College of Business, University of Cincinnati

Mario Gollwitzer, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany


Organizing Committee

Marjo-Riitta Diehl and Abiola Sarnecki, EBS Business School, Germany, &  Chris Bell, Schulich School of Business, York University, Canada; Jonathan Crawshaw, Aston Business School, United Kingdom; Russell Cropanzano, University of Colorado Boulder, United States; Marion Fortin, CRM, University of Toulouse 1; Tessa Melkonian, emlyon business school, France; Thierry Nadisic, emlyon business school, France; Charmi Patel, Henley Business School, University of Reading; Guillaume Soenen, emlyon business school, France


We invite you to submit papers and attend the 6th International Workshop on Insights in Organizational Justice and Behavioural Ethics to be held on June 5 – 7, 2019. The site of the workshop is EBS Business School, located in Oestrich-Winkel, a 30-minute drive away from Frankfurt Airport.


The aim of the workshop is to bring together a small and select group of researchers interested in the study of ethical behaviour and organizational justice in the workplace. The workshop will emphasize high-impact scholarly inquiry into the domains of behavioural ethics, corporate social responsibility, ethical decision-making, leadership, organizational justice, and related areas of study.


The specific theme of the 6th workshop is justice enactment, referring to the deliberate, conscious, and intentional actions of an individual to treat others in an either just or unjust manner. Although a wealth of evidence suggests that organizations and managers should care more about justice, we still know little about how justice agents make sense of the justice recipient’s situation or experience and how they decide to enact justice upon it or not Theoretically, an in-depth understanding of justice enactment will complement the existing rich literature on justice recipients and the growing body of research on third parties. Practically, broadening the existing understanding of the underlying forces of (un)just treatment from the actor perspective is an important step towards fairer workplaces.


We welcome submissions that tackle any aspect related to justice enactment.  The Workshop will be limited to a small group of active scholars. We will seek to provide a dynamic setting for mutual discussion, conceptual feedback, development of new research ideas, and building collaborative relationships. We consider early stage papers based on new theoretical ideas or preliminary findings as well as fully developed manuscripts. We are also interested in novel methodological approaches. The most important requirement is a willingness to share ideas and learn from one another. There is no fee for attending and presenting at the workshop. However, we will ask all who have a paper accepted and plan to attend to formally register as will be instructed after the acceptance.


Workshop presenters are encouraged to consider submitting their papers to be considered for publication in Journal of Organizational Behavior Special Issue on Justice Enactment – Research on “Doing Justice” in Organizations. The Deadline for submissions to the Special Issue on September 15th, 2019. For more information refer to:


Please, note that the special issue is open to all manuscripts and authors beyond this workshop.  

Submissions and key dates

1st March 2019: Submission of a paper title and an abstract of around 500 words

22th March 2019: Notification of acceptance / rejection of abstracts

17th May 2019: Submission of final papers – full papers (15-20 pages) are invited, although given the nature and aims of the workshop, more developmental papers (8-10 pages) are also welcomed.


All submissions, and any other enquiries, should be done electronically and directed to Marjo-Riitta Diehl at:

For any further information please visit the workshop page on the IWOJBE website at:

Awards to ISJR Members

Kees van den Bos, Utrecht University, was elected by the Utrecht University students as their Psychology Teacher of the year. Congratulations!


Justice-Related Research Grants

Research Grant awarded to Hilke Grootelaar & Kees van den Bos

Research grant, Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice and Safety, for proposal Abuse and filing complaints among Jehova's Witnesses (Principal Investigators Hilke Grootelaar and Kees van den Bos). 70.000 Euro


Research Grant awarded to Michèlle Bal

Research grant, Research Theme Institutions for Open Societies, for proposal Increasing understanding of the social gradient in health and wellbeing: An interdisciplinary approach to evidence and theory regarding social inequity (Principal Investigator Michèlle Bal). 25.000 Euro


Job Openings

Two Tenure-Track Positions in Social Psychology (Brock University, Canada)


The Department of Psychology at Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada invites applications for two probationary tenure-track positions in Social Psychology at the rank of Assistant Professor to commence July 1, 2019.


For each of the 2 positions our ideal candidate will have an outstanding record of research achievement; have demonstrated evidence of, or potential for, external research funding; be committed to open and reproducible science; be committed to undergraduate and graduate teaching in both foundational and specialized areas of Social and Personality Psychology; be committed to teaching some components of Introductory Psychology; and have a strong commitment to undergraduate mentoring and graduate student training at both the MA and PhD levels.


The two areas of specialization are as follows:


Applied Social Psychology with a focus on intragroup behaviour. Individuals with a focus on Psychology and Law, Sport Psychology, or I/O Psychology are especially encouraged to apply.


Community Psychology with a focus on health (including mental health). Candidates who focus on poverty or diversity (especially Indigenous populations) and who use ‘big data’ approaches are especially encouraged to apply.


The Psychology Department is among the most productive and impactful Psychology departments in Canada (Carleton et al., 2010; Farrell et al., 2016). Our graduate program has three foci: Behavioural and Cognition Neuroscience, Lifespan Development, and Social Personality. Faculty and graduate students from all three areas have excellent research productivity and impact. See for details of our research programs.


Interested candidates are invited to submit a letter of application, a curriculum vitae, statements of research interests and teaching philosophy, recent reprints, and evidence of teaching performance, all in electronic format (a single PDF document is preferred) via the online application system. (Note: file maximum of 5MB per upload.) Supplemental application information beyond the 5MB limit can be sent to Applicants should also arrange for at least three letters of academic reference to be sent electronically to


Review of applications will begin on January 8, 2019 and will continue until the position is filled. This position is subject to final budgetary approval. Inquiries should be directed to Dr. Cathy Mondloch, Chair of Psychology, 905-688-5550 x5111,


All interested candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority. Brock University is actively committed to diversity and the principles of employment equity and invites applications from all interested candidates. Women, Aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities, people with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) persons are encouraged to apply and to voluntarily self-identify as a member of a designated group as part of their application. Candidates who wish to be considered as a member of one or more designated groups should fill out the Self-Identification questions included in the questionnaire at the time of application.


Differing career patterns may be more common among members of designated groups, and those who have experienced leaves from the workplace. These differences will be taken into account in assessing the experiences and qualifications of members of these groups, or those who have experienced leaves from the workplace.


We will accommodate the needs of the applicants and the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) throughout all stages of the selection process, as outlined in the Employee Accommodation Policy


Please advise Cathy Mondloch ( to ensure your accessibility needs are accommodated through this process. Information received relating to accommodation measures will be addressed confidentially.

Initial posting date December 5, 2018.


Lecturer or Senior Lecturer Position at the Australian National University, Research School of Psychology



Full time, Fixed term (3 years, with possibility of extension)


Opportunity to work with experts across a range of areas of psychology and conduct impactful research and teach or supervise high calibre students and scholars


Flexible work environment with attractive remuneration package


Position overview

ANU conducts research and provides education of the highest international standard. The ANU is ranked as one of the top universities worldwide. Psychology at ANU holds the top ERA score of 5 for research (Excellence in Research for Australia 2015). The Research School of Psychology is committed to excellence in research, teaching, and supervision of research/clinical students across all areas of psychology.


This is a 3-year fixed term level B or C full time teaching and research position with the possibility of extension or conversion subject to performance and availability of funds.  We seek an appointee with a PhD in psychology. Expertise in cross cultural psychology is desirable (but not required) as is an ability to teach into one of the following core subjects; cognitive psychology, social psychology, abnormal psychology, forensic psychology, and statistics.


The appointee will take on the role of International Programs Coordinator.  This includes coordinating the program with South West University in China; organising the teaching in China by ANU staff and contributing to the teaching program themselves. The School has an articulation agreement with Southwest University in China, whereby students complete the first two years of their study in China, with some courses being presented by ANU staff. The students then complete the final two years of their degree at ANU in Canberra.


You will be joining an internationally recognised leading team of academics with a focus on achieving excellence in research and teaching. The School comprises academics working across all major areas of psychology including cognitive, clinical, health, developmental and social psychology. A full list of current academic staff and their research interests can be found at:


The position will contribute to the strategic goals of RSP through excellence in research, teaching, honours and postgraduate student supervision, and other professional activities.  RSP offers a friendly and collaborative work environment, excellent access to research equipment and software, access to excellent quality honours and postgraduate students, and mentoring and support for junior academics to develop a successful career.


ANU offers a competitive remuneration and benefits package, generous leave entitlements, flexible working arrangements, a relocation allowance, generous superannuation, salary-packaging arrangements including child care, and the potential to support dual-career arrangements.


For more information, please contact Professor Paul Martin, Director, RSP on or via telephone on +61 2 6125 3974 or +61 2 6125 2790.


ANU values diversity and inclusion and believes employment opportunities must not be limited by socio-economic background, race, religion or gender. For more information about staff equity at ANU, visit


Justice-Related Dissertations

Kurdoglu, R.S., University of Leicester, School of Business

Managerial Legitimation of Allegedly Unfair Decisions: Studying Arguments in Career Advancement Disputes


This dissertation offers a new theoretical view on organisational justice, and then empirically applies it to study fairness of career advancement decisions in organizations. Theoretically, it challenges the concept of procedural justice in organizations by drawing on Hayek’s liberal justice theory. It then introduces a new understanding of interactional justice derived from Perelman and his colleague’s argumentation theory. Accordingly, eristic modes of legitimations (preposterous reasoning to win the argument) are considered to be a breach of interactional justice, which is crucial to enable economic exchanges without deception. For applying these theoretical views in an empirical investigation, 15 interviews were conducted with former employees who claimed that their promotions were denied unfairly. In addition, 21 interviews were conducted with HRM professionals to elicit their general views on career advancement decisions. The consequent rhetorical analysis indicates that raising unfairness concerns can be futile and destructive when managerial authorities are in eristic mode of discussion which instigates malevolent political strives within organizations. Breach of interactional justice is found to be conducive to various inefficiencies for organizations as well as for individual careers.


Justice-Related Books


Van den Bos, K. (2018). Why people radicalize: How unfairness judgments are used to fuel radical beliefs, extremist behaviors, and terrorism. New York: Oxford University Press.



This book was already announced in the Spring Newsletter. It is now available.



In Why People Radicalize, Kees van den Bos argues that if we want to truly understand radicalization and prevent, attenuate, and fight violent extremism and terrorism, we must pay attention to what is driving the radicalization process. This implies that we should systematically analyze how radicalizing persons interpret the world. For example, perceptions that certain situations are fundamentally unfair and hence need to be changed are among the core issues that drive Muslim, right-wing, and left-wing radicalization. Furthermore, experiences and perceptions of unfairness and injustice can tempt those who struggle with self-control to break the law and engage in violent extremist and terrorist behavior.


Why People Radicalize is among the first attempts to provide a systematic, integrative, and in-depth analysis of the psychology of unfairness judgments and the ways these judgments impact on various radicalization processes. Discussing several conceptual and practical implications that follow from this line of reasoning, the book emphasizes the role of careful scientific thought and the notion of taking individuals seriously, as judgments of unfairness are not merely perceptions. They feel genuine to the persons forming the judgments.


This volume discusses in detail how these radicalization processes can develop and what components are of pivotal relevance in these processes. Accessible for scientists, professionals, and practitioners, the book explains how uncertainty and insufficient self-corrections influence this process. Finally, the book delineates future research issues on radicalization, extremism, and terrorism and applies the analysis to appropriate legal contexts, making the book relevant for policy and decision makers, among others.




Justice-Related Special Journal Issue

Guest Editors

Chris Bell (Schulich School of Business, York University)

Marjo-Riitta Diehl (EBS University)

Marion Fortin (University of Toulouse 1 Capitole)

Mario Gollwitzer (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München)

Tessa Melkonian (emlyon Business School)


Background and Rationale for the Special Issue


Although a wealth of evidence suggests that organizations and managers should care more about justice, workplace injustice shows little sign of abating (e.g. Matta, Scott, Colquitt, Koopman, & Passantino, 2017). As academics, we still know little about how justice agents make sense of the justice recipient’s situation or experience and how they decide to enact justice upon it or not (O’Reilly, Aquino, & Skarlicki, 2016). One reason may be that much of the organizational justice literature has focused on the perspective of the justice recipient and on the consequences of justice perceptions (Brockner, Wiesenfeld, Siegel, Bobocel, & Liu, 2015; Scott, Colquitt, & Paddock, 2009), or more recently on third party reactions to unfair treatment of others (Skarlicki, O’Reilly, & Kulik, 2015), while our understanding of the perspective of justice agentsor “actors” remains less well developed (Bies, 2015; Blader & Tyler, 2005). Given the importance of fairness in the workplace, the prerequisites and conditions for, and outcomes of, (in)justice enactment, defined as the deliberate, conscious, and intentional actions of an individual to treat others in an either just or unjust manner, merit further study. Theoretically, such an actor focus would allow for a “more complete picture of justice in organizations” (Scott et al., 2009: 757). Practically, broadening the existing understanding of the underlying forces of just or unjust treatment is an important step towards fairer workplaces.


The emerging literature on the actor’s perspective shows much promise but also points to the multiplicity of aspects involved. One group of studies has focused on factors that lie within the manager, including personality traits (Schuh, Zheng, Xin, & Fernandez, 2017), emotions (e.g. Cohen, Patner & Turan, 2012; Patient, & Skarlicki, 2010) and moral identity (e.g. Brebels, De Cremer, Van Dijke, Van Hiel 2011). Another (small) body of studies has examined managers’ experiences and work relationships and shown that managerial actions are influenced, for instance, by subordinates’ reactions (Van Houwelingen, Van Dijke, & De Cremer, 2017; Oc, Bashshur, & Moore, 2015). A third stream of research has focused on situational factors and the work context, and how for example the depletion of self-regulatory resources, (e.g. Whiteside & Barclay, in press;) workload (Sherf, Venkataramani, & Gajendran, 2018), status and power (Blader & Chen, 2012) and politics (Monin, Noorderhaven, Vaara, & Kroon, 2013) influence justice enactment. Finally, the fourth stream of research concerns the effects of justice enactment on actors themselves, including effects on the actors’ regulatory resources (Johnson, Lanaj, & Barnes, 2014) and how managers conceptualize (in)justice or even use different forms of justice for specific purposes (Zapata, Olsen, & Martins, 2013; Zhao, Chen, & Brockner, 2015). At the core of all these streams of research is the subjective nature of managers’ justice perceptions and the extent to which they care about and do justice in a motivated way (Barclay, Bashshur, & Fortin, 2017; Brockner et al., 2015).


The above contributions have created new, promising links between the fields of organizational justice, behavioral ethics, decision-making and leadership that researchers can build on. In particular the behavioral ethics literature (Brockner et al., 2015) and recent conceptual papers in the justice literature, for example on motivated justice reasoning (Barclay et al., 2017) can further contribute to our understanding of the important question of what makes managers act justly or unjustly and help riding the emerging wave of studying justice or fairness as a dependent variable.


Objectives of the Special Issue


With this special issue we seek to advance existing knowledge on why and how managers make, think, and feel about justice-related decisions, as well as on the consequences of these decisions on others and on themselves (e.g., for their own careers and health). We hope that the special issue will encourage research from a wide range of contexts and draw on several OB themes.


An indicative but not exhaustive list of questions that we are interested in addressing includes:

  • How do managers cognitively approach and frame justice related questions as justice agents? How do they decide to enact justice (or not) based on their analysis of the situation? How do they cope with potential dissonances between their justice analysis of the situation and their justice enactment (or lack thereof)?
  • How do managers justify and frame their own decisions in terms of different conceptualizations of justice versus non-justice framings (economic etc.) and how do they make sense of reactions of employees that may challenge their own framing?
  • How do managers deal with having to enact what they see themselves as injustice (e.g. “necessary evils”)?
  • What are the boundary conditions (e.g. inequality, corporate culture, ethical climate, psychological safety climate) for justice enactment?
  • How does justice enactment by managers interact with (actual or anticipated) reactions of other parties (followers, managers’ superior, etc.)?
  • What are the links between different types of leadership behaviors and styles and justice enactment?
  • What roles do emotions (e.g., empathy, guilt, liking, shame, envy) or emotion suppression play in managers’ and employees’ justice enactment?
  • How do justice enactment styles differ between contexts and cultures? How do expatriate managers adjust their justice enactment when moving across cultures?
  • Which types of managerial justice trainings are perceived as most helpful by managers, and which result in managerial behavior perceived as fairest by followers?
  • What are the outcomes of acting unjustly / justly for managers? How does justice enactment influence managers’ career trajectories?
  • How do phenomena at other levels of analysis (e.g. individuals nested within groups or organizations; behaviors nested within individuals) affect individuals’ justice enactment?


This list is not exhaustive. The key requirement is that the paper makes a new contribution to our understanding of the actor perspective to organizational justice. We especially encourage papers that include empirical investigations of these issues, but we will also consider strong theoretical or conceptual papers that stimulate the research agenda on justice enactment.


Submission Instructions


This call is open and competitive, and the submitted papers will be blindly reviewed. Scholars interested in submitting their papers to this special issue are encouraged to also consider submitting to the 6th International Workshop on Insights in Organizational Justice and Behavioural Ethics which takes place at EBS Business School in Germany in June 5 – 7, 2019.


The deadline for submissions is September 15, 2019 and papers should be submitted online via (selecting ‘Special Issue Paper’ as the manuscript type). The special issue is intended for publication in the second half of 2021. Papers submitted should be no more than 40 pages long, should be accompanied by a separate cover letter, and - to be eligible for review - must follow the Journal of Organizational Behaviour guidelines.


Please direct questions about the submission process, or any administrative matter, to the Managing Editor at Please address any content related questions you may have at Marjo-Riitta Diehl:




Barclay, L. J., Bashshur, M. R., & Fortin, M. (2017). Motivated cognition and fairness: Insights, integration, and creating a path forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 867-889.


Bies, R. J. (2015). Interactional justice: Looking backward, looking forward. In R. S. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 89-107). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.


Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: a justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 994 - 1014.


Blader, S.L., & Tyler, T.R. (2005). How can theories of organizational justice explain the effects of fairness? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice, 329-354. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates


Brebels, L., De Cremer, D., Van Dijke, M., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Fairness as Social Responsibility: A Moral Self-regulation Account of Procedural Justice Enactment. British Journal of Management, 22, 47-58.


Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., Siegel, P. A., Bobocel, D. R., & Liu, Z. (2015). Riding the fifth wave: Organizational justice as dependent variable. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 103-121.


Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., & Turan, N. (2012). Guilt proneness and moral character. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 355–359.


Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). The good and bad of being fair: Effects of procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99635-650.


Leventhal, G. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In: K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (ed.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York, NY: Plenum Press.


Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Koopman, J., & Passantino, L. (2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 743-770.


Monin, P., Noorderhaven, N., Vaara, E., & Kroon, D. (2013). Giving sense to and making sense of norms of justice in post-merger integration. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 256- 284.


Oc, B., Bashshur, M. R., & Moore, C. (2015). Speaking truth to power: The effect of candid feedback on how individuals with power allocate resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 450-463.


O’Reilly, J., Aquino, K., & Skarlicki, D. (2016). The lives of others: Third parties’ responses to others’ injustice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 171.


Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). Increasing interpersonal and informational justice when communicating negative news: The role of the manager’s empathic concern and moral development. Journal of Management, 36(2), 555-578.


Scott, B., Colquitt, J., & Paddock, E. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 756-769.


Schuh, S. C., Zheng, M. X., Xin, K. R., & Fernandez, J. A. (online June 2017). The interpersonal benefits of leader mindfulness: A serial mediation model linking leader mindfulness, leader procedural justice enactment, and employee exhaustion and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-19.


Sherf, E. N., Venkataramani, V., & Gajendran, R. S. (in press). Too busy to be fair? The effect of workload and rewards on managers’ justice rule adherence. Academy of Management Journal, (online first 2018).


Skarlicki, D. P., O’Reilly, J., & Kulik, C. T. (2015). The Third-Party Perspective of (In) justice. In R. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.), Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 235–255). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.


Van Houwelingen, G., van Dijke, M., &De Cremer, D. (2017). Fairness enactment as response to higher level unfairness: The Roles of self-construal and spatial distance. Journal of Management, 43(2), 319 – 347.


Whiteside, D. B., & Barclay, L. J. (in press). When wanting to be fair isn’t enough: The effects of depletion and self-appraisal gaps on fair behavior. Journal of Management.


Zapata, C. P., Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. (2013). Social exchange from the supervisor’s perspective: Employee trustworthiness as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 1–12.


Zhao, G., Chen, Y., & Brockner, J. (2015). What influences managers’ procedural fairness towards their subordinates? The role of subordinates’ trustworthiness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 96–112.

Recent Justice-Related Publications of ISJR Members

Babalola, M., Stouten, J., Camps, J., & Euwema, M. (in press). When do ethical leaders become less effective? The moderating role of perceived leader ethical conviction on employee discretionary reactions to ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics.


Ballard, A. & Easteal, P.  (2018). The Secret Silent Spaces of Workplace Violence: Focus on Bullying (and Harassment). Laws, 7, 35. doi:10.3390/laws7040035


Ballard, A. & Easteal, P. (2018). Procedural fairness in workplace investigations: Potential flaws and proposals for change. Alternative Law Journal 43(3) 177-183


Camps, J., Stouten, J., & Euwema, M. (in press). How followers incite abusive supervision: the role of follower deviance, supervisors’ self-doubt and interpersonal justice. Journal of Business Ethics.


Conway, P., Goldstein-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D., and Greene, J. D. (2018). Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition, 179, 241-265.


Easteal, P. & Ballard, A. (2017). Shutting-Up or Speaking-Up: Navigating the Invisible Line between Voice and Silence in Workplace Bullying. Alternative Law Journal 42(1), 47-54.


Easteal, P. , Holland, K., Breen, M.D., Vaughan, C., & Sutherland, G. (2018). Australian Media Messages: Critical Discourse Analysis of Two Intimate Homicides involving Domestic Violence. Violence Against Women.


Easteal, P. , O’Neill, J. & Ryan, T. (2018). You’ll Get Good Tips Tonight: An Analysis of Gendered Appearance Codes in the Australian Service Sector. Women Studies International Forum 72, 62-67.


Ghafournia, N. & Easteal, P. (2017). Spouse Sponsorship Policies:  Focus on Serial Sponsors, Laws 6(4), 24. doi:10.3390/laws6040024.


Ghafournia, N. & Easteal, P. (2018). Invisibility of Immigrant women in Domestic Violence Policy in Australia. Laws 7(4), 32.


Halloran, M. J. (2019). African American health and Post-Traumatic Slave Syndrome: A Terror Management Theory account. Journal of Black Studies, 50, 45-65.


Hopkins, A., Carline, A., & Easteal, P.  (2018). Equal Consideration and Informed Imagining: Recognising and Responding to the Lived Experiences of Abused Women Who Kill,  Melbourne University Law Review, 41(3), 1201-1236.,-Carline-and-Easteal.pdf


Jasso, G.  (2018).  Anything Lorenz Curves Can Do, Top Shares Can Do: Assessing the TopBot Family of Inequality Measures.  Sociological Methods and Research.  Online First.


Jasso, G.  (2018).  What Can You and I Do To Reduce Inequality? Journal of Mathematical Sociology 42(4), 186-204.


Jasso, G.  (2018). Quantitative Methods. In J. Michael Ryan (Ed.), Core Concepts in Sociology (pp. 235-241).  New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.


Kurdoglu, R.S. (2018) ‘An Inquiry into Pseudo-Legitimations: A Framework to Investigate the Clash of Managerial Legitimations and Employees’ Unfairness Claims, Business Ethics: A European Review.


Magraw-Mickelson, Z., & Gollwitzer, M. (2018). Relational and group collective self responses to observed victimization across cultures. Social Justice Research, 31, 113-132. DOI: 10.1007/s11211-018-0304-y


Sjöström, A., Magraw-Mickelson, Z. & Gollwitzer, M. (2018). What makes displaced revenge taste sweet: Retributing displaced responsibility or sending a message to the original perpetrator? European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 490-506. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2345


Smeekes, A., Jetten, J., Verkuyten, M., Wohl, M., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., ..., Gollwitzer, M., ..., & van der Bles, A. M. (2018). Regaining in-group continuity in times of anxiety about the group’s future: A study on the role of collective nostalgia across 27 countries. Social Psychology, 49, 311-329. DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000350


Smith, H. J., Ryan, D., Jaurique, A., Pettigrew, T. F., Jetten, J., ..., Gollwitzer, M., ..., & Wohl, M. (2018). Cultural values moderate the impact of relative deprivation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 1183-1218. DOI: 10.1177/0022022118784213


Süssenbach, P., Rees, J., & Gollwitzer, M. (2019). When the going gets tough, individualizers get going: On the dynamic relationship between moral foundations and prosociality. Personality and Individual Differences, 136, 122-131. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.019

ISJR Membership and Listserv

You are not a member and would like to join ISJR? Please go to our website to the "Membership" tab: and click "Become a member.”


As a member you will be automatically subscribed to the ISJR listserv. Otherwise, to subscribe to the ISJR listserv, go to:


If you are already a member of ISJR, please make sure you renew your membership and keep your membership details updated (in particular your email!):


For further information, please email to: