Literature Review
The study of organizational justice refers to the perceived outcome of fairness in the workplace. Organizational justice come in three forms: Distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice. McShane refers to distributive justice as the perceived fairness in the individual’s ratio of outcomes to contributions compared with a comparison other’s ratio of outcomes to contributions. Where as procedural justice is the fairness of the procedures used to decide the distribution of resources (McShane, 2013, p. 155). Interactional justice was also first introduced as the sensitivity to the quality of interpersonal treatment they receive during the enactment of organizational procedures (Bies & Moag, 1986).
Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the outcome. This was primarily based off the equity theory: a theory explaining how people develop perceptions of fairness in the distribution and exchange of resources (McShane, 2013, p. 156). This meaning an individual perceives whether or not there is a fair ratio between their inputs and outcomes. An individual’s input can range from numerous things such as: knowledge, effort or experience in exchange for outcomes such as: rewards, recognition, pay or satisfaction (Foster, 2008, p. 26-27)
Procedural justice focuses on the fairness in the procedure in which resources are distributed. The first way to improve procedural justice is to give the employees a voice thus making them feel better after giving them an opportunity to speak. The second option to improve procedural justice is to allow the decision maker to be unbiased and also to give a thorough explanation of the decision.
It has been argued that interactional Justice does not reply on comparative information (Bies & Moag, 1986). Interactional justice takes into consideration how fairly an individual is being treated based on their own inputs rather than comparing themselves to others in a similar circumstance. Interactional justice is defined well when it is broken up into two components: interpersonal and informational. Interpersonal including feeling aspects such as: concern, politeness and courtesy whereas informational includes a straight to the point and truthful justification of the decisions being made. (Trimarco-Beta, 2007, p. 20-21)
The implementation of organizational justice can in the long run improve the organisation by: increasing wellbeing; increased willingness to work and improve all round moral. The use of allowing employees to be more involved in the decision making process and going into a deeper explanation can vastly improve the connection between employee and organisation. Thus making the employee feel as if they are more respected within the workplace.
Diagnosis
The case study is a reflection of George’s experience whilst working as a consultant for ABC Consulting. It detailed four experiences George encountered: The resignation; the offer; the project and the Review. The generalization from the case was that George started out thinking that ABC Consulting would be a good choice since it matched his personal values but later realised that this was not the case. George encountered experiences that had him feeling as if he was unfairly treated and his hard work was not taken notice of.
At the team meeting George felt inadequate compared to Daniel and Janet about his knowledge on the client report, pushing him to work longer hours at work on the report whilst adding in his own ideas. George thought his team mates would appreciate the effort he has gone to. Rather than praising him for his hard work Janet criticized every idea George had made, making George feel even more inadequate than after the first meeting. This mistreatment of fairness in the procedure towards George changed his perception towards work: showing up later; leaving earlier; taking longer breaks than usual and no longer would do any work unless he was specifically instructed to. Rather than critising him, Janet could have explained in detail the reasons as to why George’s ideas did not fit into the clients report, and give more insight as to how he could have contributed better during the team meeting.
Another situation that occurred, referring to distributional justice, was the promise of a bonus after a three month probation period. At first the bonus was not a big deal for George but after he felt he had been treated unfairly by Janet it was one of the only reasons he was staying with ABC Consulting. George felt anger and resentment building up and thought of resigning but the bonus was also enticing him to stay. When George was finally told that he would not be receiving the bonus George thought back to his first meeting when he was clearly told everyone gets on the bonus system. This miscommunication is one area that can potentially affect the moral of the employees and would need to be clearly stated that there is the possibility that you will not receive the bonus.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The first recommendation towards the business is to improve the way in which information is passed through the staff, to ensure the moral of every employee is kept high. In this case the way George was allowed to have a voice in the meeting was a good start on the organisations behalf but when it came to his turn he was unsure what to say and the other employees should have been more encouraging. Also when George had given Janet the client report with his ideas rather than critising all of his ideas, Janet should have explained to George the reasoning why his decisions were not valid for this client report. This type of steps would prevent any demoralization of employees.
The second recommendation comes from the way George was communicated to about the bonus system. The idea of offering a bonus after a three month probation was a good idea on the organisations behalf to encourage more work from the employees but the way the bonus was conversed did not do any favours. The way the HR director told George that everyone gets the bonus after three months had George thinking that his hard work would finally get noticed and he would receive the bonus after the three months. The HR director should have made it clear that the bonus only stands if the employee shows outstanding work and commitment to the organisation.
The organisation could use these following steps in the future: 1. Clearly explain the bonus system, and what makes the employee eligible or not eligible. 2. Clearly communicate areas where the employee may not have a greater understanding. 3. Encourage the employees to have more say in a situation and explain as to why those ideas may or may not be valid.

Reference List
Bakhshi, A., Kumar, K., & Rani, E. (2009). Organizational Justice Perceptions as Predictor of Job Satisfaction and Organization Commitment. International Journal of Business and Management, 4-6.
Bies, R. B., & Moag, J, S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2013). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34-49.
Foster, R. D. (2008). Individual resistance, organizational justice, and employee commitment to planned organizational change. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=6JKEbeCsl68C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepone&q&f=false
McShane, S. L. (2013). Organisational Behaviour: Emerging knowledge: Global insights (4th ed.). North Ryde, NSW: McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd.
Trimarco-Beta, D. (2007). Customer satisfaction with a service desk during the service recovery process. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ihTUqypzTV4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

.