Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp 633–644 | Cite as

Fairness and the Main Management Theories of the Twentieth Century: A Historical Review, 1900–1965



Although not always termed “organizational justice,” the fairness of organizations has been a consistent concern of management thinkers. A review of the 1900–1965 time period indicates that management theorists primarily conceptualized organizational justice in utilitarian terms, although each theory emphasized distributive and procedural justice to different degrees. There is clearly a need for contemporary scholars to consider non-economic rationales for organizational justice, but the willingness of earlier scholars to make utilitarian arguments about organizational justice and productive efficiency helped legitimize the idea of fairness in organizations as an arbiter of value. Further, each theory tempered absolute managerial autonomy with some inherent check thereon. Researchers interested in organizational justice should therefore take a historical perspective in considering how management theory includes consideration of justice-related concerns.


management theory organizational justice scientific management administrative theory bureaucratic theory human relations human resources 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Argyris C.: 1957, Personality and the Organization: The Conflict Between the System and the Individual. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris C.: 1964, Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
  3. Blau P. M.: 1955, The Dynamics of Bureaucracy: A Study of Interpersonal Relations in Two Government Agencies. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Blau P. M.: 1956, Bureaucracy in Modern Society. New York: Random HouseGoogle Scholar
  5. Boatright J. R.: 1994, Fiduciary Duties and the Shareholder–Management Relationship: Or, What’s So Special About Shareholders?. Business Ethics Quarterly 4, 393–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll A. B.: 1979, A Three-dimensional Model of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review 6, 21–28Google Scholar
  7. Clawson D., Clawson M. A.: 1999, What has Happened to the U.S. Labor Movement? Union Decline and Renewal. Annual Review of Sociology 25, 95–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colquitt J. A., Conlon D. E., Wesson M. J., Porter C. O. L. H., Ng K. Y.: 2001, Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 425–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crozier M.: 1964, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis R. C.: 1951, The Fundamentals of Top Management. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar
  11. Dimock M. E.: 1945, The Executive in Action. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar
  12. Fama E. F., Jensen M. C.: 1983, Agency Problems and Residual Claims. Journal of Law and Economics 26, 327–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fayol H.: 1949, General and Industrial Management. London: PitmanGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman, Boston)Google Scholar
  15. Freeman L. C.: 2004, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science. Vancouver: Empirical PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman, M.: 1962/1982, Capitalism and Freedom (University of Chicago Press, Chicago)Google Scholar
  17. Frooman J.:1999, Stakeholder Influence Strategies. Academy of Management Review 24, 191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gantt H. L.: 1916, Work, Wages, and Profits. New York: Engineering Magazine CompanyGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenberg J.: 1996, The Quest for Justice on the Job: Essays and Experiments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  20. Herzberg F.: 1966, Work and the Nature of Man. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
  21. Holden P. E., Fish L. S., Smith H. L.: 1941, Top-management Organization and Control: A Research Study of the Management Policies and Practices of Thirty-one Leading Industrial Corporations. Stanford: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoxie R. F.: 1915, Scientific Management and Labor. New York: Appleton and CompanyGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacoby S. M.: 2004, Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions, and the Transformation of Work in the 20th Century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates PublishersGoogle Scholar
  24. Kang, Y.-C. and D. J. Wood: 1995, ‹Before-Profit Social Responsibility: Turning the Economic Paradigm Upside Down’, in D. Nigh and D. Collins (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society, pp. 406–418Google Scholar
  25. Kaufman A., Zacharias L., Karson M.: 1995, Managers vs. Owners: The Struggle for Corporate Control in American Democracy. New York; Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Langtry B.: 1994, Stakeholders and the Moral Responsibilities of Business. Business Ethics Quarterly 4, 431–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laufer W. S.: 2006, Corporate Bodies and Guilty Minds: The Failure of Corporate Criminal Liability. Chicago: The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  28. Marens R., Wicks A.: 1999, Getting Real: Stakeholder Theory, Managerial Practice, and the General Irrelevance of Fiduciary Duties Owed to Shareholders. Business Ethics Quarterly 9, 273–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayo E.: 1933, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York: The Macmillan CompanyGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayo E.: 1945, The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Boston: The Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  31. McGregor D.: 1960, The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  32. McGuire J. W.: 1963, Business & Society. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  33. Merton, R. K. et al.: 1952, Reader in Bureaucracy (Free Press, Glencoe, IL)Google Scholar
  34. Munsterberg H.: 1913, Psychology and Industrial Efficiency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin CompanyGoogle Scholar
  35. Phillips, R.: 2003, Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco)Google Scholar
  36. Quinn D. P., Jones T. M.: 1995, An Agent Morality View of Business Policy. Academy of Management Review 20, 22–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roethlisberger F. J.: 1941, Management and Morale. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  38. Roethlisberger F. J., Dickson W. J.: 1939, Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Sampson A.: 1995, Company Man: The Rise and Fall of Corporate Life. New York: Times BusinessGoogle Scholar
  40. Scott, J. C.: 2000. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
  41. Suchman, M. C.: 1995, Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Journal of Management 16, 399–432Google Scholar
  42. Taylor F. W.: 1903, Shop Management. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor, F. W.: 1911, The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar
  44. Urwick, L. F.: 1942, The Elements of Administration. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Buren III H. J.: 2003, Boundaryless Careers and Employability Obligations. Business Ethics Quarterly 13, 131–150Google Scholar
  46. Vroom V.: 1964, Work and Motivation. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
  47. Weber M.: 1947, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Glencoe, IL: Free PressGoogle Scholar
  48. Whyte W. F.: 1955, Money and Motivation. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar
  49. Whyte W. H.: 1956, The Organization Man. New York: Simon and SchusterGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Anderson Schools of ManagementUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations