What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural justice Steven L. Blader * , Tom R. Tyler Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA Abstract Despite a recent surge in research on procedural justice in organizational contexts, little work has systematically investigated how employees define procedural justice. In other words, relatively little has been done to establish a clear awareness of what employees consider when making their procedural justice evaluations. This lack of attention to construct definition is problematic, since it prevents an understanding of what underlies employees’ fairness evaluations and leaves several issues regarding the definition and conceptualization of procedural justice unresolved. To address these issues, this article describes the four-component model of procedural justice [Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (in press). A four component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a ‘‘fair’’ process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: procedural justice, social identity and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.], which posits four components that are believed to underlie overall procedural justice evaluations. The model differentiates between both justice type (decision making, quality of treatment) and justice source (formal, informal) in developing these components. Research supporting the four-component conceptualization is discussed and the utility of this approach for procedural justice research is reviewed. D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Fairness; Four-component model; Procedural justice 1053-4822/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00101-8 * Corresponding author. Management Department, Stern School of Business, New York University, 40 West 4th Street, Room 7-18, New York, NY 10012, USA. E-mail address: sblader@stern.nyu.edu (S.L. Blader). www.HRmanagementreview.com Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107 – 126