Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPatient, David
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-02T07:20:19Z
dc.date.available2020-06-02T07:20:19Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/job.752
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12127/6512
dc.description.abstractThe unique legal context investigated by Stein, Steinley, and Cropanzano (this issue) highlights important challenges facing decision makers charged with administering justice in turbulent environments. First, rules may need to be adapted to new information and changed circumstances. Second, consistency over time can compete with altruistic motives, moral convictions, and other important principles. Third, decisionmakers may face demands from multiple audiences to re‐interpret a rule in ways that are harsher, more lenient, or otherwise different than previously warranted. Since managers in other organizational settings can also face strong pressures to change over time how they interpret and apply rules, the legal context highlights important aspects of fairness that can compete with consistency over time, and that merit further investigation
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWiley
dc.subjectTerror Management Theory
dc.subjectProcedural Justice
dc.subjectFairness
dc.subjectTerrorism
dc.subjectJudicial Sentencing
dc.relation.embedded
dc.titlePitfalls of administering justice in an inconsistent world: Some reflections on the consistency rule
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Organizational Behavior
dc.source.volume32
dc.source.issue7
dc.source.beginpage1008
dc.source.endpage1012
dc.contributor.departmentCatólica Lisbon School of Business and Economics, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Palma de Cima, Lisbon 1649‐023, Portugal
dc.identifier.eissn1099-1379
vlerick.knowledgedomainPeople Management & Leadership
vlerick.typearticleVlerick strategic journal article
vlerick.vlerickdepartmentP&O
dc.identifier.vperid276185


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record