组织公平感与员工忠诚度关系的实证研究——以杭州物美超市为例外文翻译.doc

浙江理工大学科技与艺术学院本科毕业论文外文翻译原文1：progress in organizational justice:tunneling through the mazebefore starting this journey, it is important to specify our orientation. in keeping with social science tradition, our treatment of justice is completely descriptive in orientation-focusing on peoples perceptions of what constitutes fairness, and their reactions to unfair situations.this is in contrast to the large body of work in moral philosophy (e.g., for a review, see cohen & greenberg, 1982) which is inherently prescriptive, specifying what should be done to achieve justice (for more on this distinction, see greenberg & bies, 1992). as such, when organizational scientists talk about justice, they generally are referring to individual perceptions, ones evaluations as to the appropriateness of a given outcome or process. thus, as the term is used here, justice is subjective as perceived by a person.in general, the study of organizational justice has focused on two major issues: employees responses to the things they receivethat is, outcomes, and the means by which they obtain these outcomesthat is, procedures. it is almost tautological to claim that all allocation decisions are about outcomes. in fact, work settings may be characterized by the outcomes stemming from them. for example, performance appraisal results in some rating or ranking, a promotion decision culminates in a new job, a pay review results in a raise, a selection interview results in a hiring decision, and so on. of course, outcomes also can be negative as well as positive. for example, decisions are also made about how to punish a poor performer, and whom to terminate during cutbacks. allocations result in a certain configuration or pattern whereby some individuals get more and others get less. individuals evaluations of these outcomes are referred to as judgments of distributive justice(leventhal. 1976a).although concerns about distributive justice are critical in organizations, and were the first form of justice to capture the attention of organizational scientists (see greenberg. 1987a), they comprise only part of the story where organizational justice is concerned. outcomes do not simply appear; they result from a specific set of process or procedures. for example, people may raise questions about their performance ratings, promotion decisions, pay raises, or selection decisions were determined. were these based on procedures that are themselves fair? as we will detail in this chapter, peoples perceptions of the fairness of the procedures used to determine allocationsreferred to as procedural justiceare of considerable importance in organizations. indeed, there are many benefits that result from perceived fair procedures, and problems that result from perceived unfair procedures.insofar as the concept of procedural justice was introduced into the study of organizations during a period in which interest in distributive justice was waning (folger & greenberg, 1985; greenberg & folger, 1983) it quickly became the center of attention among justice researchers (greenberg & tyler, 1987). not surprisingly, contemporary empirical work has emphasized procedural justice. the balance of material in the present chapter reflects this trend: although we review recent investigations of both types of fairness, procedurai justice receives somewhat more attention. this skew reflects only the prevailing balance of attention in the literature, and not our judgment about their relative importance. indeed, we have advocated the importance of both distributive and procedural justice in our own work (e.g., folger & cropanzano, in press; greenberg, 1996a).author: russell cropanzano & jerald greenbergnationality: usaoriginate from：international review of industrial and organizational psychololgy, 1997译文1：组织公平的进步：隧道通过迷宫这开始这篇论文之前，说明我们研究的方位，这是很重要的。根据适合社会科学的传统,我们对于公平的治疗方案是集中在以人为本的观念所包含的内容公平和他们对于不公平反应的情况具有完全描述性的定位。与大型的作品在道德哲学（例如审查，可以参见科恩和格林伯格的作品，1982）比较，具有是内在规定性，能说明应如何实现公平（更多的是这个区别，参考格林伯格和毕斯，1992）。这样，当组织科学家谈论公平时，他们通常是指个人看法，一个人的评价，关于对一个给定的结果和过程是否恰当。因此，公平这个词在这里，是个人主观的感知。.一般来说，组织公平的研究主要集中于两个主要问题：员工对于事情的反应得到的就是结果，他们获得这些结果的方式就是过程。这几乎是宣称所有分配决策是关于结果。事实上，可能是工作设置的特点导致从结果出发。例如，绩效考核的结果决定一定等级和排序，晋升的决定会在一份新的工作体现，检讨结果决定加薪，面谈雇用决定结果，等等。当然，结果可能是负面也可能是积极的。例如，对一个表现不好的雇员如何惩罚，谁应该在裁员时被解雇等问题做出决定。分配导致一个特定的配置或模式，一些人得到得更多，其他一些人得到就更少了。对这些结果的单个评估的判断简称为分配正平。正因为分配公平在企业中十分重要，并且作为公平的的第一种形式吸引组织科学家的关注(见格林伯格，1987)，但他们组成了只有部分的故事，是组织公平的一部分。结果并不是单单出现的，他们还源于一套特定的进程或程序。例如，人们可能会对他们的表现评级、晋升决策、加薪或者选择决策如何做出等提出问题。这些是基于程序本身是公平的吗？正如我们将在本章中详细介绍的，人民对公平的分配使用程序确定称为程序公平，对于企业同样相当重要。实际上，由于知觉程序的公平可以带来很多好处，但当认为程序不公平时同样会出现很多问题。在程序公平的概念被引入研究组织的一个时期，组织公平研究者对分配公平的关注渐缺（福尔杰和格林伯格，1985；福尔杰和格林伯格，1983），很快程序公平就成为万众瞩目的焦点（格林伯格和泰勒，1987）。毫不奇怪，现代的实证研究都强调了程序公平。这一章节材料的平衡反映出目前的趋势：虽然我们回顾了最近的调查的两种类型的公平，程序公平收到更多的关注。它只能反映现行文献上关注的平衡，而不是我们的判断它们的相对重要性。事实上，我们在我们自己的工作都提倡分配公平和程序公平的重要性。.作者：罗素克瑞潘泽多和杰拉尔德格林伯格国籍：美国出处：国际审查工业与组织心理学,1997年原文2：untangling employee loyalty: a psychological contract perspectiveloyalty has played a periodic but important role in the business ethics literature in the last few decades. much of the recent attention to loyalty has been prompted by discussions of the changing nature of the employment relationship(grosman 1989; pfeiffer 1992; haughey 1993). the role and limits of loyalty have also featured prominently in debates about issues such as downsizing and whistleblowing (larmer 1992; duska 2001; vandekerckhove and commers 2004). much of the debate has focused on the appropriateness, objects, and obligations of loyalty (axinn 1994; gilbert 2001; haughey 1993; haughey 1997; mele 2001; oriando 1999; provis 2005; randels 2001; schrag 2001; solomon 1994). despite considerable scholarly attention to the concept, loyalty and its dimensions remain, at best, casually defined (coughlan 2005). consequently, several conceptual problems persist in the literature. in the philosophical tradition, for example, loyalty is typically discussed in unconditional, either/or terms: either one is loyal or one is not; loyalty is either a moral duty or a dangerous attachment (carbone 1997; ewin 1992, 1993; mele 2001; petdt 1988; randels 2001). this dichotomous approach has provided useful fodder for philosophical inquiry into, and debate about, the role of loyalty. however, debating whether loyalty is a virtue or vice, for instance, obscures the complexity of loyalty. in the workplace, individuals must adopt a fluid approach to assessing the demands of loyalty as contexts and relationships change. without addressing this fluidity, it is difficult if not impossible to predict behavioral or attitudinal outcomes of peoples perceptions that others have been loyal or disloyal.a second problem is highlighted by the social science approach to understanding loyalty. in the social science literature, loyalty (although rarely measured as an independent construct) is typically conceptualized and operationalized as a continuous variable, such that ones loyalty is assessed on a scale from low to high(coughlan, 2005, is a notable example). this approach provides more nuance than philosophical debates about what loyalty is and is not, but it tends to draw attention away from the content of loyaltythe specific obligations that individuals ascribe to the term when they use it. it is clear from the vast variety of definitions of loyalty (see coughlan 2005, kleinig 1993, and gilbert 2001 for excellent discussions of the lack of definitional consensus) that loyalty connotes different things to different people. treating loyalty as a dichotomous or condnuous variable obscures the richness and idiosyncrasy of the concepts meaning in application. treating loyalty as a dichotomous or continuous variable obscures the richness and idiosyncrasy of the concepts meaning in application. moreover, it hampers our ability to anticipate why two parties can each claim that the other has been disloyal to the relationship, but genuinely feel that they themselves have been perfectly loyal. in short, without considering the variety of content in loyalty conceptualizations, we cannot explain asymmetries in how two exchange partners construct the meaning of loyalty.while loyalty has received considerable attention from philosophers, it is, of course, not simply a philosophical abstraction. it is also a cognition held by a person to characterize his or her relationship with another person or party. as such, loyalty ought to be amenable to measurement and empirical investigation. although social scientists have generally not investigated loyalty as a discrete construct perse, the concept of loyalty pervades foundational literature on organizational commitment, which is closely related to loyalty (mowday, porter, and steers 1982; o reilly and chatman 1986; meyer and allen 1991). defined as a psychological state that (a) characterizes the employees relationship with the organization, and (b) has implications for the decision to continue or discontinue membership in the organization (meyer and allen 1991), organizational commitment is closely akin to traditional conceptualizations of organizational loyalty, which revolve around ones level of devotion to the organization (gilbert 2001; see also royce 1908).loyalty and commitment occupy much of the same conceptual space. loyalty, however, extends subtly beyond basic notions of commitment in at least two ways. first, the commitment literature adopts a personal choice paradigmto commit or not to commit to an organization are alternatives that an employee considers based on rational analysis and/or sentiment (see meyer and allen 1997). loyalty, on the other hand, introduces a normative component into the relationship because it is usually depicted as a duty. there is less stigma associated with saying i have chosen not to commit than with saying i am disloyal. second, scholarly literature tends to focus on commitment as if it were a unidirectional construct. researchers concem themselves with measuring the extent to which employees feel commitment toward their organizations, for instance. loyalty, however, implies mutuality. whereas commitment is usually conceptually located within the individual, loyalty resides more at the nexus of a relationship.focusing on the extent of ones commitment has proven an extremely fruitful strategy for organizational scholars. however, we advocate a more nuanced approach to the study of loyalty that emphasizes differences in perceived content of loyalty. an example may serve to clarify what we mean by the content of loyalty. consider the various ways in which one could construe loyalty to and from ones church, for instance. if i consider myself loyal to my church, it may mean that i attend meetings assiduously and ask the pastor what i can do to help. to someone else, loyalty to church may primarily mean sticking up for the congregation if someone says that it is full of hypocrites. yet again, another person may claim loyalty to church simply by paying occasional offerings even though he or she doesnt often attend. the variety of perceived obligations means that people who act very differently with regard to the church may equally consider themselves loyal. by the same token, i may consider my church (as an organization) loyal to me when its representatives seek me out during the week to make sure im living a good life, or i may only consider it loyal to me if my minister trusts me enough to not hassle me about my personal lifestyle, other than through a weekly sermon.the example serves to demonstrate a variety of ways in which loyalty can be construed. although the extent of loyalty in this situation is important, a scalar approach of attachment would not capture all the aspects of loyalty contained in that situation. clearly this poses a challenge for scholars, but it is also an opportunity for considering the richness and complexity with which people assign obligations to themselves and to their organizations.author: david w hart and jeffery a thompsonnationality: usaoriginate from：business ethics quarterly，2007译文2：从心理契约的角度理解员工忠诚在过去几十年，忠诚在商业理论文学上扮演了一个具有周期特点，但十分重要的角色。当前，讨论改变自然的雇佣关系引起对忠诚的关注（格罗斯曼，1989；法伊弗，1992；豪伊，1993）。角色和局限性的忠诚关于精简和告密的问题上具有突出特点（拉尔默1992；杜斯卡2001；温迪克和科曼，2004）。大部分的争论已经集中在忠诚的适用性、对象、义务上（阿辛，1994；吉尔伯特，2001；豪伊，1993；豪伊，1997；迈乐，2001；奥兰多，1999；普罗维斯，2005；瑞德尔， 2001；施拉格，2001；所罗门，1994）。尽管相当的学者注意到概念、忠诚和其规模依然存在，但即使在最好的情况下，还是会随意定义（考伦，2005）。因此, 文学上依然坚持一些概念性问题。例如，在哲学传统中，讨论了忠诚是典型的无条件的术语：任何一个简单的包含忠诚，忠诚是一个道德责任或者一个危险的附件。这个二分法方法的框架，提供了有益的哲学探讨，讨论角色的忠诚。然而，讨论忠诚是否是一种美德和恶习，例如，曲解了复杂的忠诚。在工作场所，个人必须采取一种流体的方法，来评估的需求背景和忠心为关系的变化。如果不解决这个流动性的，对于预测结果的行为或态度来感知员工是忠诚或不忠诚的，就变得困难了。第二个问题是用社会科学方法来理解忠诚的概念。在社会科学文献,忠诚(虽然很少作为一个独立结构测量) 作为一个连续变量，要典型的概念化并操作化，正如一个人的忠诚是按比例从低到高的（考伦，