Organisational justice and mental health: a systematic review of prospective studies Ruth Ndjaboue ´, 1 Chantal Brisson, 1 Michel Ve ´zina 2 ABSTRACT The models most commonly used, to study the effects of psychosocial work factors on workers’ health, are the Demand-Control-Support (DCS) model and Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model. An emerging body of research has identified Organisational Justice as another model that can help to explain deleterious health effects. This review aimed: (1) to identify prospective studies of the associations between organisational justice and mental health in industrialised countries from 1990 to 2010; (2) to evaluate the extent to which organisational justice has an effect on mental health independently of the DCS and ERI models; and (3) to discuss theoretical and empirical overlap and differences with previous models. The studies had to present associations between organisational justice and a mental health outcome, be prospective, and be entirely available in English or in French. Duplicated papers were excluded. Eleven prospective studies were selected for this review. They provide evidence that procedural justice and relational justice are associated with mental health. These associations remained significant even after controlling for the DCS and ERI models. There is a lack of prospective studies on distributive and informational justice. In conclusion, procedural and relational justice can be considered a different and complementary model to the DCS and ERI models. Future studies should evaluate the effect of change in exposure to organisational justice on employees’ mental health over time. INTRODUCTION Psychosocial stressors in the workplace, and their deleterious effect on mental health, have become an important public health issue. 1e4 Prospective studies have identified some psychosocial factors leading to physical and mental health problems. 1e35e7 Most of these studies preferentially used the Demand- Control-Support (DCS) model 8 and Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model. 9 Previous systematic reviews on the effects of work stressors on mental health were limited to these models. 4 However, a third model, the Organisational Justice (OJ) model, has been recently proposed. 10 11 It has been argued that in today ’s rapidly changing work life, job control (from the DCS) may become less meaningful, as a result of the increased use of short- term contracts and the job insecurity that goes with them. 12 In fact, the current developments in the labour market, the recent changes in work charac- teristics across a range of organisational contexts, and the emphasis on occupational equity may reflect the growing importance of underemploy- ment, redundancy and forced occupational mobility. 12 In this context, the OJ model, which has been found to be prospectively associated with physical health, 5 13 may become increasingly important to employees’ mental health. 14 There are also some prospective studies on the effect of organisational justice on mental health, 13 but no systematic review has been conducted. The extent to which this model is related to mental health disorders and is independent of the DCS or ERI factors therefore remains unclear. To help answer these questions, we will review both, the theoretical framework and empirical studies, on organisational justice and mental health. THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL BACKGROUND FOR THE ORGANISATIONAL JUSTICE MODEL The organisational justice concept has developed out of a pre-existing conceptual framework called Adams’‘equity theory ’. According to Adams, 15 16 individuals develop beliefs about what would be fair recognition for their work. Then, they compare themselves or someone else with a ‘ referent’ in terms of the input/output ratio. A referent is another employee who is deemed to be equivalent in terms of duties and work status. 16 The inputs are effort, time, skill, loyalty, tolerance, flexibility and integrity. The outputs are salary and bonuses, job security, recognition, reputation and responsibili- ties/promotions. In some situations, the compar- ison may lead to a perception of unequal treatment between an employee and one or more referent(s), which could in turn lead to potentially negative outcomes. Adams points to possible emotional and/or physical problems as evidence of a relation- ship between inequity/injustice and health. 15 Organisational justice refers to the equity in the rules and social norms that govern companies, particularly in terms of ‘ resources and benefits distribution (or distributive justice), processes and procedures conditioning that distribution (or procedural justice) and interpersonal relationships (or interactional justice)’. Interactional justice has two components: relational justice (degree of dignity and respect received from managerial authority) and informational justice (presence or absence of explanations from the managerial authority about new procedures). 57 In theory, the OJ model can assess perceptions of workplace situations, even when the subject is not personally and directly concerned. 15 This seems to be one of the differences, when compared with the DCS and ERI models, which measure perceptions of individual situations. Indeed, one might perceive a balance between its efforts and compensation (control or rewards), but still perceive injustice when compared with other employee of the workplace. < An additional table is published online only. To view this file please visit the journal online (http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1136/oemed-2011-100595). 1 Sante ´ des populations: URESP, Centre de recherche FRSQ du Centre hospitalier affilie ´, universitaire de Que ´bec, Ho ˆpital du Saint-Sacrement, Que ´bec City, Que ´bec, Canada 2 De ´partement de me ´decine sociale et pre ´ventive, Pavillon Ferdinand-Vandry, Universite ´ Laval, Que ´bec City, Que ´bec, Canada Correspondence to Ruth Ndjaboue ´, Sante ´ des populations: URESP, Centre de recherche FRSQ du Centre hospitalier affilie ´, universitaire de Que ´bec, Ho ˆpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050 chemin Sainte-Foy, Que ´bec City, Que ´bec G1S 4L8, Canada; ruth-sandra.ndjaboue-njike.1@ ulaval.ca Accepted 3 May 2012 Review 694 Occup Environ Med 2012;69:694–700. doi:10.1136/oemed-2011-100524 group.bmj.com on December 3, 2015 - Published by http://oem.bmj.com/ Downloaded from