Abstract
Copious research supports the association between organizational justice and employee performance. This study utilizes organizational justice as a theoretical framework to predict self-reported police misconduct. In particular, this study builds upon recent work into police officers’ behavioral responses to perceived injustice by exploring the link between perceptions of overall organizational injustice and three forms of police defiance: 1) using departmental rules, policies, or laws against the administration when needed, 2) purposely undermining the administration’s goals, and 3) disregarding organizational policies and procedures. Data was collected using an online self-report survey distributed to a convenience sample of sworn police officers that were members of a police officer association in a southern state. Multinomial logistical regression techniques were used for analyses, suggesting that perceived overall injustice has a positive effect on the likelihood officers would self-report engaging in all three forms of organizational defiance.
Description
Copyright 2019 by the journal of Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society (https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/about) (CCJLS) and The Western Society of Criminology, originally article here: https://command.columbusstate.edu/readingassignments/auxiliaryreadinglists/organizational_injustice_policeconduct.pdf Used by permission.
Publisher
Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society
Date of publication
2019
Language
english
Persistent identifier
http://hdl.handle.net/10950/2640
Document Type
Article
Recommended Citation
Reynolds, Paul and Helfers, Richard, "Organizational Injustice and Police Misconduct: Predicting Organizational Defiance Among Police Officers" (2019). Criminal Justice Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 2.
http://hdl.handle.net/10950/2640
Publisher Citation
Reynolds, P. D., & Helfers, R. C. (2019). Organizational injustice and police misconduct: Predicting organizational defiance among police officers. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 20(1), 53–70.