Personal values, organizational justice, and counterproductive behavior: connections, reflections, and research agenda

Abstract

From reflections on the themes “personal values,” “organizational justice,” and “counterproductive behavior,” personal values are seen to guide the behaviors of individuals in the organizational environment according to their axiological priorities. Such priorities influence the perception of organizational justice, whose absence or fragility can lead individuals to behave counterproductively. Therefore, this essay presents a theoretical-relational model integrating such constructs. Hypotheses underpinning this model and a robust agenda for future investigations have been outlined, including methodological possibilities.

Keywords:
Personal values; Organizational justice; Counterproductive behavior

Resumo

A partir da reflexão sobre os temas “valores pessoais”, “justiça organizacional” e “comportamento contraproducente”, percebeu-se que os valores pessoais norteiam os comportamentos dos indivíduos no ambiente organizacional, conforme as prioridades axiológicas, as quais influenciam a percepção de justiça organizacional, cuja ausência ou fragilidade pode levar os indivíduos a se comportarem de forma contraproducente. Diante disso, este ensaio objetiva apresentar um modelo teórico-relacional integrando tais construtos. Foram delineadas hipóteses que sustentam o referido modelo e uma robusta agenda para futuras investigações, incluindo possibilidades metodológicas.

Palavras-chave:
Valores pessoais; Justiça organizacional; Comportamento contraproducente

Resumen

A partir de reflexiones sobre los temas “valores personales”, “justicia organizacional” y “comportamiento contraproducente”, se comprendió que los valores personales guían los comportamientos de los individuos en el entorno organizacional, según sus prioridades axiológicas. Tales prioridades influyen en la percepción de la justicia organizacional, cuya ausencia o fragilidad puede llevar a los individuos a comportarse contraproducentemente. Por lo tanto, este ensayo tiene como objetivo presentar un modelo teórico-relacional integrando tales constructos. Se han esbozado hipótesis que sustentan este modelo, así como una agenda sólida para futuras investigaciones, incluyendo posibilidades metodológicas.

Palabras clave:
Valores personales; Justicia organizacional; Comportamiento contraproducente

INTRODUCTION

This theoretical essay seeks to introduce a comprehensive theoretical model that interconnects the constructs of “personal values,” “organizational justice,” and “counterproductive behavior.” It also aims to outline potential research avenues that link these three key themes.

Personal values represent guiding principles closely tied to individual attitudes, categorized based on cultural influences and personal experiences. They play a crucial role in shaping how individuals define, assess, and rationalize their behavior (Schwartz, 1999), and what distinguishes each value is the underlying motivational aspect it embodies (Tamayo, 2007).

In the context of organizations, values serve as guiding lights for defining objectives, goals, and positioning within the market and society. Consequently, they are pivotal in establishing a collective identity and galvanizing individuals in support of the organization’s ideals (Tamayo, 2008).

Since the 1960s, research in the domain of social psychology has probed the influence of values and beliefs on individuals’ perceptions of justice or injustice (Assmar et al., 2005). Just as values can influence perceptions of justice, they can also have ramifications. Mendonça (2003) underscores the substantial impact of justice perceptions on individual and collective behavior and moral judgments. Therefore, counterproductive behavior emerges as a response to perceptions of injustice, as corroborated by extant studies in the literature (Amzulescu & Butucescu, 2021; De Clercq et al., 2021).

The concept of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) refers to deliberate actions aimed at harming the organization and contravening its objectives (Vardi & Weitz, 2003). According to Coutinho (2014), these behaviors engender detrimental consequences for organizations and encompass various actions, such as absenteeism, theft, non-compliance with directives, and retaliation. Hence, the necessity for research that offers models capable of probing the manifold causes of counterproductive behaviors at work is evident. Such research not only enhances our comprehension of the phenomenon but also aids in mitigating the adverse effects on employees and organizations (Spector et al., 2006).

Our investigation of the Spell and SciELO databases reveals that studies examining counterproductive behavior as a unified construct remain in their infancy in Brazil, which opens up an avenue for exploring the relationship between personal values, organizational justice perceptions, and counterproductive behavior. Personal values govern the choices individuals make across all aspects of their lives, making them a promising field of research for organizations keen on discerning positive or counterproductive behaviors by scrutinizing the values held by their members (Tinoco et al., 2011).

Among the three focal constructs, “personal values” boasts a more established research agenda, encompassing investigations among workers from public educational institutions (Campos et al., 2017), young apprentices (Paiva et al., 2017), a comparative analysis between civil servants and private sector employees (Andrade & Costa, 2017), the influence of values on leadership (Fonseca et al., 2012; Sobral & Gimba, 2012), values in organizational change (Adler & Silva, 2013), and various other areas. Complementary research delves into the perception of organizational justice and its relation to burnout syndrome (Schuster et al., 2014), job satisfaction (Beuren et al., 2017), and public institutions (Rocha et al., 2016), among others. These studies cover an array of contexts, from call center employees (Zarife, 2016) and managers (Beuren et al., 2016) to young workers (Franco & Paiva, 2018) and bank employees (Gomes et al., 2020).

Given the aforementioned landscape, it is imperative to explore the potential interconnectedness between the highlighted themes. Consequently, this essay is structured as follows: after this introduction, we delve into the theoretical framework concerning personal values, organizational justice, and counterproductive behavior. We subsequently present an exploration of potential linkages between these themes and proffer an integrated theoretical model. Finally, we discuss potential avenues for future research and present our concluding remarks.

PERSONAL VALUES

Personal values are closely associated with individual attitudes and are considered fundamental principles that elucidate disparities among people and their behaviors (Ros, 2006). As Schwartz (1999) posits, values serve as guiding forces in the manner by which individuals delineate, assess, and elucidate their actions. Concerning axiological priorities, the distinguishing feature of each value lies in the type of motivation it embodies (Tamayo, 2007).

Values originate from individual needs and are regarded as convictions intertwined with behavior or existential objectives (Rokeach, 1973). This author distinguishes between instrumental and terminal values, where the former serve as the means to realize personal preferences, and the latter encompass the preferences themselves. On the basis of this distinction, Rokeach (1973) introduced an assessment tool known as Rokeach’s Value Survey (RVS), comprising 18 instrumental values and 18 terminal values. Respondents are tasked with hierarchically prioritizing these values in accordance with the guiding principles that steer their lives.

In 1987, Schwartz and Bilsky published the inaugural article outlining the fundamental tenets of Schwartz’s value theory, advocating a departure from Rokeach’s 1973 categorization of values (Teixeira et al., 2014). Over time, Schwartz refined the theory and made substantial headway in explicating the “motivational types of values.” He also developed and validated the Schwartz Values Survey (SVS) across 20 countries, measuring ten (10) motivational types (Teixeira et al., 2014).

These ten (10) motivational types are arranged along two (2) bipolar dimensions: self-transcendence versus self-promotion and openness to change versus conservation (Schwartz, 1994). The former dimension contrasts values that promote the acceptance of others as equals and concern for their well-being (universalism and benevolence) with those that accentuate the pursuit of success and dominion over others (power and achievement). The latter dimension, in turn, distinguishes values that underscore autonomous thinking and action, contributing to change (self-direction and stimulation) from those that prioritize self-restraint, the preservation of traditional practices, and stability (security, conformity, and tradition). Hedonism is concurrently related to both openness to change and self-promotion (Schwartz, 1994). A comprehensive list of the ten motivational types, along with their respective definitions, can be found in Box 1.

Box 1
Ten Motivational Types and Their Conceptual Definitions

Following this, Schwartz et al. (2012) introduced an updated concept termed the “refined theory of values,” which enumerates 19 distinct values: Self-Direction of Thought, Self-Direction of Action, Stimulation, Hedonism, Achievement, Power of Domination, Power over Resources, Face, Personal Safety, Social Safety, Tradition, Conformity to Rules, Interpersonal Conformity, Humility, Dependence, Care Benevolence, Commitment Universalism, Nature Universalism, and Tolerance Universalism. For a detailed understanding of each value, please refer to Box 2, which provides the conceptual definitions for each value.

Box 2
The 19 Values in the Refined Theory, Each Defined in Terms of Its Motivational Goal

Drawing from the research conducted by Schwartz et al. (2012), Torres et al. (2016) conducted a study to assess the applicability of the 19 values within Brazilian samples, leading to the development of an adapted and validated version in Brazil: The Refined Values Questionnaire (PVQ-R). Figure 1 illustrates the sequence of the 19 values within the circular structure of the refined theory (Torres et al., 2016).

Figure 1
Proposed circular motivational continuum of 19 values with sources that underlie their order

Schwartz’s circular framework of human values is underpinned by a robust theory that has been confirmed through intercultural and multicultural research, serving as a benchmark in studies encompassing diverse research domains (Almeida & Sobral, 2009).

Values are inherently shaped by societal constructs; in other words, moral principles concerning what is right or wrong evolve in tandem with culture and can evolve over time. Consequently, perceptions of justice, viewed from this perspective, are also socially constructed and mutable, contingent upon the norms and values prevailing in a given society. Thus, just as values are relative and adaptable, so too are interpretations of justice (Schminke et al., 2015).

Furthermore, the connections between the dimensions of distributive and procedural justice exhibit variations among individuals. The relative significance of these perceptions hinges on each person’s individual value orientation, as highlighted by Lipponen et al. (2004). These authors scrutinized values as moderators influencing the dimensions of justice, proposing an approach to understanding justice perceptions in the context of individual values, with values being seen as precursors to the experience of justice.

In a complementary vein, Fischer and Smith (2004) emphasize that individuals, contingent on their distinct value structures, objectives, and aspirations, reach disparate conclusions about their recognition, status, and trust in the eyes of their superiors. Consequently, the perception of justice represents an intricate interplay between managerial actions and individual values.

ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

The term “organizational justice” was introduced in the late 1980s by Greenberg (1988) to underscore the significance of this construct in the dynamics between individuals and organizations (Assmar & Ferreira, 2004). As Paz et al. (2009) elucidate, the number of studies within the field of organizational psychology pertaining to justice has steadily grown over time. This increase underscores the importance of justice as an antecedent to behaviors and attitudes in the organizational domain. This is primarily because individuals are increasingly concerned with rewards tied to their productivity and have become more attuned to the criteria and procedures that ensure recognition of their contributions to the organization.

According to Rego (2002), conventional investigations into organizational justice are grounded in a three-dimensional model that encompasses the following dimensions: distributive, procedural, and interactional. Conceptually, distributive justice pertains to the outcomes achieved and is primarily concerned with tangible elements such as salaries, promotions, and profit-sharing. Procedural justice, on the other hand, focuses on the processes encompassing the means employed to reach a particular end, the criteria used for determining salary increments, and the systems for evaluating performance. Finally, interactional justice relates to the respectful and dignified treatment of subordinates by management (social/interpersonal) and the provision of justifications and information regarding decisions that impact the group (informational).

Rego (2000) noted that while the concept of “organizational justice” had substantial theoretical and empirical support, there was a lack of standardized measurement tools. In response, the author proposed and tested the dimensional structure of a questionnaire, which ultimately revealed a three-dimensional structure encompassing the three justice dimensions most prevalent in the literature. However, this study also raised the possibility of subdividing the interactional dimension into interpersonal and informational sub-dimensions. Consequently, Rego et al. (2002) conducted confirmatory factor analyses and found a better fit for a model featuring four (4) dimensions: distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational, as opposed to the conventional three-dimensional model.

Mendonça et al. (2003) furthered this research by developing and validating the Organizational Justice Perception Scale (EPJO) to assess the three most commonly studied dimensions. This instrument comprises 20 items evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The “distributive justice” dimension examines how employees perceive the relationship between their efforts and the rewards they receive, while “procedural justice” scrutinizes the formalized processes used by those responsible for resource allocation. Lastly, “interactional justice” evaluates the interpersonal interactions between managers and subordinates.

In a recent study, Guimarães et al. (2022) observed that there is a dearth of research on organizational justice in Brazil, particularly regarding its antecedents, potential mediating and interactional effects, and the methodologies used for result analysis. Furthermore, both nationally and internationally, there exists a lack of consensus concerning the understanding of the construct as three- or four-dimensional. Researchers who advocate the three-dimensional model tend to treat interpersonal and informational justice as a singular dimension called “interactional justice.”

Within the organizational landscape, it is essential for managers to comprehend when and under what conditions individuals perceive the distribution of resources and procedures as fair, whether in relation to formal policies and practices or in interpersonal interactions between managers and subordinates. Additionally, it is pertinent to investigate how employees react when they perceive unfair treatment, as these reactions often manifest as counterproductive behaviors (Mendonça, 2003).

COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR

The exploration of counterproductive behavior in the workplace has a longstanding history, albeit not always as part of a broader construct. Historically, elements like turnover, absenteeism, bullying, theft, and fraud were studied in isolation rather than as a collective of behaviors, as contemporary scholars propose (Ferreira, 2013). Researchers such as Bennett and Robinson (2000), Marcus and Schuler (2004), and Vardi and Weitz (2004) have endeavored to comprehend counterproductive behavior within organizations as a more holistic and systematic concept from both a theoretical and conceptual perspective (Ferreira, 2013).

Counterproductive work behavior refers to intentional actions that run counter to an organization’s interests (Vardi & Weitz, 2003). Moreover, Martinko et al. (2002) assert that such behavior emerges from the interplay between individuals and their environment, wherein an individual’s perceptions of the organizational context and anticipated outcomes can lead to detrimental behaviors.

Several theoretical perspectives on counterproductive behavior incorporate factors linked to information processing, with two common elements delineating how individuals evaluate the quality of their outcomes. These elements include perceived fairness and perceived success or failure, along with beliefs regarding the causes of their results, which subsequently influence their behavior (Martinko et al., 2002).

The assessment of outcome quality typically involves a comparative process that unveils perceptions of imbalance or injustice. Thus, even if two individuals perceive their outcomes as unfair, their attributional reasoning processes determine the ascribed causes of these outcomes and predict their counterproductive responses. In other words, if a person attributes a negative outcome to personal characteristics, such as a lack of effort, they are more likely to shoulder the blame and abstain from engaging in counterproductive behavior.

Moreover, according to Martinko et al. (2002), this attribution theory elucidates why some individuals opt to channel their behavior in retaliatory forms when confronted with adverse outcomes, while others internally direct their efforts toward self-destructive manifestations of counterproductive behavior, such as alcohol and drug use.

To gauge such behaviors, Bennett and Robinson (2000) devised the Workplace Deviance Scale (WDS), comprised of 19 items and encompassing two factors: “organizational deviance” and “interpersonal deviance.” The latter pertains to behaviors directly harming the organization, while the former refers to behaviors injuring other individuals in the workplace.

Beyond the categorization of counterproductive behaviors as organizational or interpersonal, they can also be classified according to their severity, distinguishing between high and low impact (Box 3).

Box 3
Typology of Counterproductive Behaviors

It is worth emphasizing that counterproductive behaviors, in any of their forms, are detrimental to organizations, regardless of the target or severity (Silva, 2020).

STUDIES RELATING VALUES, ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR: POSSIBLE ARTICULATIONS AND PROPOSITION OF A THEORETICAL MODEL

Personal values play a significant role in explaining individuals’ behavior within organizations, with a diverse range of behavioral reactions being underpinned by the varying values that each person prioritizes (Fischer & Smith, 2006). Consequently, values are frequently employed to elucidate the attitudinal underpinnings and motivations behind human behavior (Schwartz, 1994).

Another influential factor affecting individuals’ attitudes in organizational settings is the perception of justice. The theoretical underpinnings and studies pertaining to this topic have expanded since the 1990s. The aim has been to delve into the complexity of this construct, its intricacies, dimensions, antecedents, consequences, organizational impacts, and its influence on the well-being of workers (Assmar & Ferreira, 2004).

Within the Brazilian context, there has been a growing call for more in-depth investigations into the antecedents of organizational justice, as exemplified by the work of Guimarães et al. (2022). This is primarily due to the realization that perceptions of (in)justice are multifaceted and influenced by cultural, normative, moral, and social factors. Equally important is the exploration of the consequences of organizational justice.

One of the potential outcomes of organizational justice is counterproductive behavior at work, a construct that has garnered increasing attention from researchers in recent decades. However, few studies have delved into the analysis of its predictors (Oliveira et al., 2020).

In a theoretical essay by Costa (2022), an integrated model is presented, connecting the constructs of “organizational justice,” “work engagement,” and “counterproductive behavior.” According to the author, when employees perceive justice within the workplace, taking into account the distributive, procedural, and interactional dimensions, they are more likely to be engaged in their work. Conversely, when there is a perception of injustice, they tend to exhibit counterproductive behavior, both at an individual and organizational level.

Several empirical studies have explored the relationship between perceived organizational justice and counterproductive behavior (Coutinho, 2014; Ferreira, 2013; Freire et al., 2011; Schuster et al., 2013). Some have even highlighted a significant and negative connection between perceived organizational justice and counterproductive behavior (Colquitt et al., 2013). Research has also shed light on the association between personal values and organizational justice (Fiuza, 2010; Mendonça & Tamayo, 2008; Souza et al., 2004).

In his thesis, Coutinho (2014) conducted three studies to analyze the relationships between personality traits, perceived organizational justice, and counterproductive work behavior. The first study involved the cross-cultural adaptation of the Workplace Deviance Scale (WDS) by Bennett and Robinson (2000) and confirmed its semantic validity. The adapted scale was named WDS-BR and was deemed equivalent to the original version. The second study assessed the scale’s internal validity through exploratory factor analysis. Finally, the third study investigated the connections between personality variables, organizational justice, and counterproductive work behavior.

Based on a sample of 266 individuals, the results indicated a negative relationship between the informational and distributive dimensions of justice and organizational counterproductive behaviors. In contrast, the interpersonal dimension was found to be associated with organizational, interpersonal, and general dimensions of counterproductive behavior.

Ferreira (2013) examined the connection between personality traits, the perception of distributive justice, job satisfaction, and counterproductive work behaviors. The study involved 381 professional respondents from both public and private sectors, with 142 residing in Minas Gerais and 239 in Bahia. The findings revealed that higher perceptions of distributive justice were linked to reduced counterproductive behavior toward the organization.

In a related study, Freire et al. (2011) investigated how perceptions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational) and stress (demands, control, and support) predict counterproductive behavior, which is analogous to counterproductive behavior. The results led to the conclusion that perceptions of distributive and informational justice foster greater affective involvement of workers with the organization, thus minimizing counterproductive behaviors.

Similarly, Oliveira et al. (2020) analyzed the impact of two personality traits, friendliness and neuroticism, organizational justice, and leader-member exchange on counterproductive work behavior. The study was conducted within the engineering department of a Brazilian organization, revealing the direct effects of friendliness, neuroticism, and leader-member exchange on counterproductive work behavior. Notably, the influence of organizational justice appeared to be mediated by the “leader-member exchange” variable.

These studies echo the statement by Schuster et al. (2013, p. 48). “When perceptions of fairness are low, they encourage counterproductive behaviors in the workplace and impact employee performance.”

In contrast, Fiuza (2010) delved into the relationship between the perception of people management policies, personal values, the perception of justice, and the “type of organization” as a functional variable. Regression analysis indicated that personal values did not strongly predict the perception of the analyzed people management policies, except for their contributions to explaining involvement, training, and development/education policies, which were not significant.

On the other hand, perceptions of organizational justice emerged as the primary predictors of most people management policies, with distributive justice being particularly influential on policies related to involvement, working conditions, and rewards. Procedural justice was a robust predictor of various people management policies in general.

Mendonça and Tamayo (2008) explored the connection between Schwartz’s motivational types and the perception of organizational retaliation, which refers to behavior arising as a reaction to perceived injustice and is counterproductive for organizations. The sample included 251 workers, and multiple linear regression analyses showed that workers who prioritize motivational types related to openness to change were more likely to perceive organizational retaliation. However, the hypothesis that prioritizing self-promotion values implied a greater perception of retaliation was not substantiated. The expected statistically significant and negative relationship between the values of conservation and self-transcendence was confirmed only for the former, indicating that prioritizing motivational types of conformity and tradition in relationships with others and institutions negatively influenced the perception of organizational retaliation.

To examine the perception of distributive and procedural justice, taking personal values into account as predictors, Souza et al. (2004) conducted a survey within tourism organizations and collected data from a sample of 197 workers. The multiple regression analyses revealed that the motivational type “power” was a predictor of distributive justice, while “stimulation” was a predictor of procedural justice.

Considering that unethical behaviors fall within the domain of “counterproductive behavior” due to their violation of moral norms accepted by society, Guimarães (2021) aimed to identify the moderating role of the perception of organizational justice in the relationship between personal values and unethical behaviors. The study disclosed that individuals with a stronger inclination toward self-promotion values tend to exhibit more unethical behavior, while those emphasizing self-transcendence values display less unethical behavior. Furthermore, the study did not identify statistical evidence of the moderation of organizational justice. Finally, the findings indicated that a greater perception of distributive justice was associated with a reduction in unethical behavior.

Given the complexity of these interconnected issues and the related studies, we propose a model that examines the relationship between personal values, organizational justice, and counterproductive behavior, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2
Proposed Relational Theoretical

Values play a pivotal role in evaluation, with individuals scrutinizing situations in the organizational context based on their axiological priorities. This assessment can significantly impact an individual’s perception of a given situation, influencing their judgment of its fairness or unfairness. Therefore, these evaluations, guided by principles and perceptions of justice, have a direct bearing on an individual’s behavior, which can tend towards counterproductivity, particularly when a sense of injustice prevails in the workplace.

The dual dimensions of values are categorized into four broad motivations, representing distinct spectrums: openness to change versus conservation and self-promotion versus self-transcendence. Openness to change embodies independent thinking and attitudes that contribute to progressive transformation, while conservation pertains to self-restraint and the preservation of the status quo and tradition. Self-promotion reflects a desire for prominence in the social sphere and self-satisfaction. In contrast, self-transcendence encompasses a category that underscores the recognition of equality and concern for the well-being of all members of society (Almeida & Sobral, 2009).

When examining organizational justice, it is essential to consider its three fundamental dimensions: distributive, which gauges how fairly workers perceive the relationship between their efforts and the rewards they receive; procedural, concerned with the formalized processes by which resources are allocated; and interactional, which pertains to the interpersonal dynamics between managers and subordinates (Mendonça et al., 2003). Counterproductive behavior can be categorized into an organizational dimension, encompassing actions directly harmful to the organization (e.g., stealing workplace property, cheating, intentional lateness, or disclosing confidential company information to third parties), and an interpersonal dimension, involving negative behaviors directed towards individuals within the organization, such as workplace mockery, rudeness, or making comments of an ethnic, religious, or racial nature (Bennett & Robinson, 2000).

In light of these dimensions and the interplay between organizational justice and counterproductive behavior, it is reasonable to infer that individuals who identify discrepancies in the distributive and procedural dimensions within their daily work environment are more likely to exhibit counterproductive behavior aimed at directly harming the organization. Conversely, when they perceive injustices of an interactional nature, individuals are more inclined to engage in counterproductive interpersonal behavior, which may target their superiors or close colleagues and take advantage of confidential information or bonuses obtained through procedures perceived as unfair.

Mendonça and Tamayo (2008) delved into a specific form of counterproductive behavior, namely organizational retaliation, revealing that retaliatory attitudes are rooted in values that prioritize self-interest and social superiority. Values are widely recognized for their influence on various aspects of human behavior, impacting both pro-social conduct and counterproductive attitudes within organizations (Mendonça & Tamayo, 2008).

One hypothesis is that individuals who prioritize conservation values, emphasizing the preservation of traditional practices and security (Schwartz, 1994), are less likely to engage in counterproductive behaviors that could jeopardize their financial security and stability. Those who prioritize self-transcendence values, characterized by their concern for the well-being and equality of all (Schwartz, 1994), are similarly not expected to exhibit counterproductive behavior. Self-promotion, encompassing values that accentuate the pursuit of success and dominance over others (Schwartz, 1994), may be linked to the interpersonal facet of counterproductive behavior. Conversely, openness to change, embracing factors associated with independent thinking and actions that drive change (Schwartz, 1994), might be associated with counterproductive behavior. In essence, values become significantly intertwined with counterproductive behavior when perceptions of organizational (in)justice come into play.

After elucidating the dimensions of each construct, establishing conceivable conceptual connections among them, and aligning them with the earlier-mentioned studies, the following hypotheses have been formulated:

• H₁: Personal values centered on self-transcendence show a negative correlation with counterproductive behavior.

• H₂: Personal values associated with self-promotion show a positive correlation with counterproductive behavior (specifically, in the interpersonal dimension).

• H₃: Personal values associated with openness to change show a positive correlation with counterproductive behavior (primarily in the organizational dimension).

• H₄: Personal values associated with conservation show a negative correlation with counterproductive behavior.

• H₅: Perceived distributive justice is inversely related to counterproductive behavior, particularly in the organizational dimension.

• H₆: Perceived procedural justice is inversely related to counterproductive behavior, particularly in the organizational dimension.

• H₇: Perceived interactional justice is inversely related to counterproductive behavior, particularly in the interpersonal dimension.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND FINAL REMARKS

Considering the aforementioned, a range of research possibilities emerges. In methodological terms, quantitative studies have traditionally dominated this field due to the availability of validated questionnaires for various aspects. Nonetheless, qualitative research offers the means to delve deeply into complex phenomena and relationships. The “multi-method approach has been gaining traction as a strategy that provides researchers with the flexibility to traverse both paradigms” (Azevedo et al., 2013, p. 12). This is especially vital when examining the “counterproductive behavior” construct, which frequently encounters difficulties when crafting measurement instruments. These obstacles arise from individuals’ reluctance to self-report deviant behavior due to the fear of potential repercussions, which may introduce bias into direct behavioral measures assessing variables susceptible to social desirability (Mendonça & Tamayo, 2003).

Thus, from a methodological perspective, it is advisable to employ a qualitative approach alongside or subsequent to quantitative stages to complement the findings. Semi-structured interviews can serve as a strategic means to pose indirect questions about counterproductive behaviors. This approach allows probing into the respondents’ workplace realities, inquiring about the prevalence of such behaviors among colleagues, their assessments of these behaviors, the circumstances under which they might engage in such actions and related inquiries.

In quantitative research, it was observed that studies connecting organizational justice to counterproductive behaviors have typically employed correlation analysis and multiple linear regression (Coutinho, 2014; Ferreira, 2013; Freire et al., 2011), just as research linking justice and values has (Fiuza, 2010; Mendonça & Tamayo, 2008; Souza et al., 2004). To explore the relationships between the three constructs more thoroughly, it is advisable to consider multivariate statistical techniques, such as exploratory factor analysis, which could be used to revalidate the scales in specific research contexts. Structural equation modeling, which allows for the simultaneous analysis of the effects and associations among variables (Hair et al., 2009), is another potential avenue of exploration.

Regarding personal values, the PVQ-R (Torres et al., 2016), an instrument validated and adapted for the Brazilian context, is the most up-to-date scale, encompassing Schwartz et al.’s (2012) 19 motivational types. It has already been tested in other studies (Fujihara, 2018; Paiva et al., 2020, 2021).

For the measurement of perceived organizational justice, the differentiation between the distributive and procedural dimensions, with the latter including the interactional dimension (Rego et al., 2002), has achieved consensus. From another perspective, the authors argued in favor of the three-dimensionality of the construct and, later on, of a model with four dimensions: distributive, procedural, social/interpersonal, and informational. Other alternatives include the use of the organizational justice perception scale (EPJO) developed by Mendonça et al. (2003), comprising 20 items divided into three factors: distributive, procedural, and interactional justice.

In evaluating counterproductive behaviors, the original WDS scale developed and validated by Bennett and Robinson (2000) includes 19 items divided into two dimensions: organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance. This scale has been adapted and validated in Brazil by Nascimento et al. (2015).

These scales and others relevant to the constructs in focus can be employed in quantitative studies aimed at analyzing their interrelationships, as outlined in the proposed theoretical model.

Moreover, there are various research avenues catering to different audiences. Campos et al. (2017) underscore the need for more studies on values within the public sector and public higher education institutions. Additionally, Paiva et al. (2017) have examined organizational values, work values, and retaliatory attitudes among young apprentices, indicating the potential for integrated research involving young workers. This endeavor could also include the analysis of personal values within this demographic.

Similarly, researchers studying the perception of organizational justice among call center workers (Zarife, 2016), public institution employees (Rocha et al., 2016), young workers (Franco & Paiva, 2018), and bank employees (Gomes et al., 2020) have called for further studies in these areas and proposed integrated analyses. Counterproductive behavior remains a growing topic in Brazil, providing a multitude of research opportunities, methodologically and relationally, across various audience segments.

Given the limited availability of Brazilian instruments for measuring counterproductive behaviors, Nascimento et al. (2015) recommend more studies employing the WDS-BR scale with diverse target groups. This can contribute to an improved understanding of the instrument’s internal statistical structure. It is imperative to advance this research agenda, particularly in conjunction with other organizational behavior topics.

The ethical aspects must be observed in accordance with the regulatory standards for research involving human subjects, as outlined in Resolutions No. 466/2012 and No. 510/2016 of the National Health Council (CNS). Thus, the anonymity and confidentiality of the information are guaranteed to the research participants, with the support of the Free and Informed Consent Form (FICF), signed in duplicate, so that one copy remains in the possession of the respondent. Indeed, it is expected that the participants will feel confident to respond truthfully to all questions, including those related to injustice and counterproductive behaviors.

In conclusion, this essay aimed to present a comprehensive theoretical model integrating personal values, organizational justice, and counterproductive behavior while also highlighting potential research avenues relating to these three themes. This endeavor seeks to contribute to the ongoing conceptual development of a research agenda that can provide timely and valuable results within the academic and practical domains.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We extend our gratitude to the Minas Gerais State Research Foundation (FAPEMIG) for granting Thaís Pinto da Rocha Torres a scholarship during her doctoral studies and for their valuable support of research project APQ-00768-21, Call 001/2021 - Universal Demand, which is under the capable coordination of Kely César Martins de Paiva. Furthermore, we express our appreciation to the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for their support of research project 434264/2018-0, MCTIC/CNPq Call No. 28/2018 - Universal, led by the author Kely César Martins de Paiva. Additionally, we acknowledge CNPq for the Research Productivity Grant awarded under project no. 312539/2018-5, CNPq Call No. 09/2018 - Research Productivity Grants - PQ, which has been granted to Kely César Martins de Paiva.

REFERÊNCIAS

• Adler, C. S., & Silva, A. L.(2013). A interface entre valores humanos e mudança organizacional: evidências de uma operação de aquisição. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 14(2), 16-41. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712013000200002
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712013000200002
• Almeida, F. J., & Sobral, F. J. (2009). O sistema de valores humanos de administradores brasileiros: adaptação da escala PVQ para o estudo de valores no Brasil. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 10(3), 101-126. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712009000300007
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712009000300007
• Amzulescu, G., & Butucescu, A. (2021). The role of work alienation in the relationship between perceived organizational justice and counterproductive work Behaviors. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 19(1), 56-66. https://doi.org/10.24837/pru.v19i1.487
  » https://doi.org/10.24837/pru.v19i1.487
• Andrade, D. C., & Costa, D. M. (2017). 20 anos da administração pública gerencial: valores pessoais dos funcionários públicos e colaboradores da iniciativa privada. Revista Eletrônica Científica do CRA-PR, 4(2), 109-126. https://recc.cra-pr.org.br/index.php/recc/article/view/76
  » https://recc.cra-pr.org.br/index.php/recc/article/view/76
• Assmar, E. M., & Ferreira, M. C. (2004). Cultura, justiça e saúde no trabalho. In A. Tamayo(Ed.), Cultura e saúde nas organizações. Artmed.
• Azevedo, C. E., Oliveira, L. G., Gonzalez, R. K., & Abdalla, M. M. (2013). A estratégia de triangulação: objetivos, possibilidades, limitações e proximidades com o pragmatismo. In Anais do 4ºEncontro de Ensino e Pesquisa em Administração e Contabilidade, Brasília, DF, Brasil.
• Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
• Beuren, I. M., Barros, C. M., & Vesco, D. G. (2016). Percepção de justiça organizacional dos gestores no uso do balanced scorecard para a mensuração do desempenho estratégico. Revista de Contabilidade e Organizações, 10(27), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.11606/rco.v10i27.109014
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/rco.v10i27.109014
• Beuren, I. M., Santos, V. D., Marques, L., & Resendes, M. (2017). Relação entre percepção de justiça organizacional e satisfação no trabalho. Revista de Educação e Pesquisa em Contabilidade, 11(Especial), 69-86. https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v11i0.1721
  » https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v11i0.1721
• Campos, S. A., Lehnhart, E. D., Fossá, M. I., & Balsan, L. A. (2017). Valores relativos ao trabalho em uma instituição pública de ensino superior. Revista Pretexto, 18(1), 11-27. https://doi.org/10.21714/pretexto.v18i1.2456
  » https://doi.org/10.21714/pretexto.v18i1.2456
• Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199-236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757
• Costa, S. D. M. (2022). Conexões entre justiça organizacional, engajamento e comportamentos contraproducentes. Revista Pretexto, 23(1), 78-87. http://revista.fumec.br/index.php/pretexto/article/view/8751
  » http://revista.fumec.br/index.php/pretexto/article/view/8751
• Coutinho, A. C. (2014). Características de personalidade e percepção de justiça organizacional na predição de comportamentos contraproducentes no trabalho (Tese de Doutorado). Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.
• De Clercq, D., Kundi, Y. M., Sardar, S. & Shahid, S. (2021). Perceived organizational injustice and counterproductive work behaviours: mediated by organizational identification, moderated by discretionary human resource practices. Personnel Review, 50(7/8), 1545-1565. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-06-2020-0469
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-06-2020-0469
• Ferreira, M. F. (2013). Relação entre traços de personalidade, percepção de justiça distributiva, satisfação e comportamentos contraproducentes no trabalho (Tese de doutorado). Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.
• Fischer, R., & Smith, P. B. (2004). Values and organizational justice: performance and seniority-based allocation criteria in the United Kingdom and Germany. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 35(6), 669-688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104270110
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104270110
• Fischer, R., & Smith, P. B. (2006). Who cares about justice? The moderating effect of values on the link between organisational justice and work behaviour. Applied Psychology, 55(4), 541-562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00243.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00243.x
• Fiuza, G. D. (2010). Políticas de gestão de pessoas, valores pessoais e justiça organizacional. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 11(5), 55-81. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712010000500004
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712010000500004
• Fonseca, A. M., Porto, J. B., & Barroso, A. C. (2012). O efeito de valores pessoais nas atitudes perante estilos de liderança. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 13(3), 122-149. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712012000300007
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712012000300007
• Franco, D. S., & Paiva, K. C. (2018). Justiça organizacional e comportamentos retaliatórios: como jovens aprendizes (não) se posicionam? Revista Gestão & Planejamento, 19(1), 331-349. https://dx.doi.org/10.21714/2178-8030gep.v19.5166
  » https://doi.org/10.21714/2178-8030gep.v19.5166
• Freire, M., Ribeiro, N. G., & Rego, A. (2011). Os comportamentos contraprodutivos (CCP) como resposta às perceções de justiça organizacional e ao estresse. In Anais da 3ªConferência em Investigação e Intervenção em RH, Vila do Conde, Portugal. https://doi.org/10.26537/iirh.v0i3.1821
  » https://doi.org/10.26537/iirh.v0i3.1821
• Fujihara, R. K. (2018). Estamos prontos para as novas tecnologias? A relação entre valores humanos e prontidão à tecnologia aplicada ao m-commerce (Tese de Doutorado). Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brasil.
• Gomes, T. C., Estivalete, V. F., & Ramadam, A. O. (2020). Justiça organizacional: análise empírica da percepção de bancários do setor público e privado. Revista Ciências Administrativas, 23(6), 10237. https://doi.org/10.5020/2318-0722.2020.26.3.10237
  » https://doi.org/10.5020/2318-0722.2020.26.3.10237
• Guimarães, L. N. (2021). Valores pessoais e comportamento antiético: a moderação das percepções de justiça organizacional (Tese de doutorado). Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brasil.
• Guimarães, L. N., Porto, J. B., & Borges-Andrade, J. E. (2022). Organizational justice: an overview of the Brazilian scientific production. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 38, e38518. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e38518.en
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e38518.en
• Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Análise multivariada de dados. Bookman.
• Lipponen, J., Olkkonen, M., & Myyry, L. (2004). Personal value orientation as a moderator in the relationships between perceived organizational justice and its hypothesized consequences. Social Justice Research, 17(3), 275-292. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SORE.0000041294.68845.0f
  » https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SORE.0000041294.68845.0f
• Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: a causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00192
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00192
• Mendonça, H. (2003). Retaliação organizacional: o impacto dos valores e da justiça (Tese de Doutorado). Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brasil.
• Mendonça, H., & Tamayo, A. (2003). Construção e validação de uma medida de atitude em relação à retaliação organizacional (Maro). Avaliação Psicológica, 2(2), 147-153. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/avp/v2n2/v2n2a05.pdf
  » http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/avp/v2n2/v2n2a05.pdf
• Mendonça, H., & Tamayo, A. (2008). Valores pessoais e retaliação organizacional: estudo em uma organização pública. RAC-Eletrônica, 2(2), 189-200. https://arquivo.anpad.org.br/periodicos/arq_pdf/a_733.pdf
  » https://arquivo.anpad.org.br/periodicos/arq_pdf/a_733.pdf
• Mendonça, H., Tamayo, A., & Flauzino, D. P. (2004). Percepção e julgamento da retaliação organizacional: construção e validação fatorial de um instrumento. Estudos de Psicologia, 9(3), 543-551. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-294X2004000300017
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-294X2004000300017
• Mendonça, H., Tamayo, A., Pereira, C., & Paz, M. G. (2003). Validação fatorial de uma escala de percepção de justiça organizacional. Estudos: Saúde e Vida, 30(1), 111-130. https://www.eumed.net/rev/cccss/2020/01/percepcao-justica-organizacional.pdf
  » https://www.eumed.net/rev/cccss/2020/01/percepcao-justica-organizacional.pdf
• Nascimento, E., Coutinho, A. C., Andrade, J. E., & Mendonça, L. M. (2015). Adaptação transcultural da workplace deviance scale (WDS) para o contexto brasileiro. Revista Psicologia: Organizações e Trabalho, 15(4), 384-396. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rpot/v15n4/v15n4a06.pdf
  » http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rpot/v15n4/v15n4a06.pdf
• Oliveira, L. B., Moreno, V. A. Jr, & Gonçalves, R. C . (2020). Individual and situational antecedents of counterproductive work behaviors. Brazilian Administration Review, 17(3), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-7692bar2020190126
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-7692bar2020190126
• Paiva, K., Fujihara, R. K., & Reis, J. F. (2017). Valores organizacionais, valores do trabalho e atitudes retaliatórias: um estudo com jovens aprendizes em uma empresa pública. Teoria e Prática em Administração, 7(1), 54-78. https://doi.org/10.21714/2238-104X2017v7i1-32783
  » https://doi.org/10.21714/2238-104X2017v7i1-32783
• Paiva, K. C. M., Rocha, M. S., & Fujihara, R. K. (2021). Valores humanos e vínculos organizacionais: um estudo comparativo com jovens trabalhadores. In Anais do 7º Congresso Brasileiro de Estudos Organizacionais, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.
• Paiva, K. C. M., Rocha, M. S., Lara, S. M., & Fujihara, R. K. (2020). Evidências de validade da escala de valores humanos (PVQ-R) para jovens trabalhadores. In Anais 44º Encontro da ANPAD, Maringá, PR, Brasil.
• Paz, M. G., Gosendo, E. E., Dessen, M. C., & Mourão, R. G. (2009). Justiça organizacional e bem-estar pessoal nas organizações. Estudos, 36(1), 95-115. https://doi.org/10.18224/est.v36i1.1020
  » https://doi.org/10.18224/est.v36i1.1020
• Rego, A. (2000). Justiça organizacional: desenvolvimento e validação de um instrumento de medida. Psicologia, 14(2), 285-307. https://doi.org/10.17575/rpsicol.v14i2.515
  » https://doi.org/10.17575/rpsicol.v14i2.515
• Rego, A. (2002). Comprometimento afetivo dos membros organizacionais: o papel das percepções de justiça. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 6(2), 209-241. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552002000200012
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552002000200012
• Rego, A., Carvalho, M. T., Leite, R., Freire, C., & Vieira, A. (2002). Justiça nas organizações: um modelo tetradimensional. Revista Psicologia: Organizações e Trabalho, 2(2), 113-142. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rpot/v2n2/v2n2a06.pdf
  » http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rpot/v2n2/v2n2a06.pdf
• Rocha, A. C., Ceretta, G. F., & Andretto, V. P. (2016). Análise da percepção de justiça no trabalho: o caso de uma instituição pública. Navus - Revista de Gestão e Tecnologia, 6(3), 97-110. https://navus.sc.senac.br/navus/article/view/385
  » https://navus.sc.senac.br/navus/article/view/385
• Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. The Free Press.
• Ros, M. (2006). Psicologia social dos valores humanos: uma perspectiva histórica. In M. Ros, & V. V. Gouveia (Eds.), Psicologia social dos valores humanos: desenvolvimentos teóricos, metodológicos e aplicados. Senac.
• Schminke, M., Arnaud, A., & Taylor, R. (2015). Ethics, values, and organizational justice: individuals, organizations, and beyond. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(3), 727-736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2251-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2251-3
• Schuster, M. S., Dias, V. V., & Battistella, L. F. (2013). Mapeamento da temática justiça organizacional e a relação de suas dimensões com comportamento organizacional. Revista de Administração Imed, 3(1), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.18256/2237-7956/raimed.v3n1p43-53
  » https://doi.org/10.18256/2237-7956/raimed.v3n1p43-53
• Schuster, M. S., Dias, V. V., & Battistella, L. F. (2014). Burnout e justiça organizacional: um estudo em servidores públicos federais. Revista de Administração IMED, 4(3), 330-342. https://doi.org/10.18256/2237-7956/raimed.v4n3p330-342
  » https://doi.org/10.18256/2237-7956/raimed.v4n3p330-342
• Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x
• Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International View, 48(1), 23-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x
• Schwartz, S. H. et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663-688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393
• Silva, S. N. (2020). O contrato psicológico: efeitos nos comportamentos contraprodutivos e de cidadania organizacional (Dissertação de Mestrado). Instituto Politécnico de Leiria, Leiria, Portugal.
• Sobral, F. J., & Gimba, R. F. (2012). As prioridades axiológicas do líder autêntico: um estudo sobre valores e liderança. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 13(3), 96-121. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712012000300006
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712012000300006
• Souza, L. D., Pérez-Nebra, A. R., & Tamayo, A. (2004). Predição dos valores pessoais sobre percepção de justiça de funcionários que atuam com turismo em empresas do Distrito Federal. Turismo - Visão e Ação, 6(3), 243-252. https://periodicos.univali.br/index.php/rtva/article/view/1060/869
  » https://periodicos.univali.br/index.php/rtva/article/view/1060/869
• Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
• Tamayo, A. (2007). Contribuições ao estudo dos valores pessoais, laborais e organizacionais. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 23(Especial), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-37722007000500004
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-37722007000500004
• Tamayo, A. (2008). Valores organizacionais. In M. M. Siqueira(Ed.), Medidas do comportamento organizacional: ferramentas de diagnóstico e de gestão. Artmed.
• Teixeira, M. L., Sambiase, M. F., Janik, M., & Bilsky, W. (2014). Peculiaridades da estrutura de valores básicos dos brasileiros. Revista Psicologia - Organizações e Trabalho, 14(2), 139-152. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rpot/v14n2/v14n2a02.pdf
  » http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rpot/v14n2/v14n2a02.pdf
• Tinoco, J. E., Assêncio, E. W., João, B. N., & Claro, J. A. (2011). Influência dos valores individuais no desempenho empresarial: um estudo usando o inventário de valores de Schwartz. Sociedade, Contabilidade e Gestão, 6(2), 139-155. https://doi.org/10.21446/scg_ufrj.v6i2.13243
  » https://doi.org/10.21446/scg_ufrj.v6i2.13243
• Torres, C. V., Schwartz, S. H., & Nascimento, T. G. (2016). A teoria de valores refinada: associações com comportamento e evidências de validade discriminante e preditiva. PsicologiaUSP, 27(2), 341-356. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-656420150045
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-656420150045
• Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2003). Misbehavior in organizations: theory, research, and management. Psychology Press.
• Zarife, P. S. (2016). Percepção de justiça organizacional de trabalhadores de call center. Revista Eniac Pesquisa, 5(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.22567/rep.v5i1.283
  » https://doi.org/10.22567/rep.v5i1.283

• DATA AVAILABILITY

  The references utilized for this theoretical essay are publicly accessible in freely available databases.

REVIEWERS

• 11
  Francisco Bezerra Fonseca Fonseca (Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife / PE - Brazil). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0938-463X
• 12
  One of the reviewers did not authorize the disclosure of their identity.

PEER REVIEW REPORT

• 13
  The peer review report is available at this URL: https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/91019/85518

Hélio Arthur Reis Irigaray (Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro / RJ - Brazil). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9580-7859

Fabricio Stocker (Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro / RJ - Brazil). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6340-9127

Data availability

The references utilized for this theoretical essay are publicly accessible in freely available databases.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  27 May 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  21 Mar 2023
• Accepted
  18 Aug 2023