An inquiry into pseudo‐legitimations: A framework to investigate the clash of managerial legitimations and employees' unfairness claims

• Date: 01 January 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12202
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• Author: Rasim Serdar Kurdoglu

Business Ethic s: A Eur Rev. 2019;28:1 29–1 38 . wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer  

|

 129

© 2018 John Wiley & So ns Ltd

1 | INTRODUCTION

Organizatio nal fairness and ju stice perceptions h ave been exten‐

sively studied and conceptualized by organizational researchers

(Colquitt et al ., 2013; Crawshaw, Cropanzano, Bel l, & Nadisic, 2013;

Cropanzano, B owen, & Gilliland, 2007; Fort in, Cojuharenco, Patien t,

& German, 2016; Rupp, S hapiro, Folger, Skarlick i, & Shao, 2017;

Shahzad & Mulle r, 2016). Though fairness and ju stice have often

been used synonymously, there can be some philosophical differ‐

ences betwee n them (Goldman & Cropanz ano, 2015). However, as a

psychological phenomenon, justice and fairness perceptions essen‐

tially repres ent the same matter, i.e., a n individual’s psych ological

reaction to how t hey are treated, bas ed on their moral ass essment

of whether they receive what they deserve. In that sense, a claim

of unfairness or i njustice basically amount s to arguing, “I do not de‐

serve the situ ation inflicted on me.” Sustaini ng focus on fairness as

a personal psyc hological reaction , this paper offers a new anal ytical

framework that incorporates managerial legitimation claims.

As a sociopsych ological force, l egitimation is a cla im that purpor ts

to elicit consent an d submission by influe ncing socially negot iated

meaning (Tyler, 2006; Vaa ra & Tienari, 20 08). Facing a legitimati on

claim, employees can oppose its power by sustaining their own claim

of unfairness. Such disagreement on fairness and legitimacy war‐

rants ethic al inquiry, as it raises the po ssibility of abuse of power:

There are different ways to denominate this unrea‐

sonable exercis e of power: you may call it ab use of

law, excess or misappl ication of power, bad faith, in iq‐

uity, a ridiculous or arbitrary application of legal reg‐

ulations, an ac t contrary to the ge neral principle s of

law common to all civi lized nations. (Perel man, 1979,

p. 121)

Received:26Novem ber2017 

|

  Revised:10June2018 

|

  Accepted:22Aug ust2018

DOI: 10 .1111/bee r.12202

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

An inquiry into pseudo‐legitimations: A framework to

investigate the clash of managerial legitimations and

employees’ unfairness claims

Rasim Serdar Kurdoglu

School of Busi ness, Universit y of Leicester,

Leicester, United Kingdom

Correspondence

Rasim Serdar Ku rdoglu, School of B usiness,

University of Leicester, Leicester, United

Kingdom.

Email: rsk15@le.ac.uk

Abstract

Based on the argume ntation theory of ne w rhetoric, this paper of fers an analytic al

framework to facili tate empirical investig ations on how managers in org anizations

handle unfairnes s claims. The proposed fr amework advocates a rhetorical appr oach

that seeks to under stand whether managers absol ve themselves of unfairness accu‐

sations by pseudo‐leg itimations. Pseudo‐leg itimation is defined as an at tempt to le‐

gitimate an action wi thout any genuine reasoning . While the precision of forma l

deductive reaso ning tends not to apply to mora l disputes, rhetoric enab les rational

argumentation an d the use of practical reasonin g to achieve resolution. Therefore, if

managerial judgment s are genuine products of reasoning, m anagers’ use of rhetoric

to legitimate their ac tions should be respec ted in acknowledging val ue plurality

within their bound aries of authority. By contr ast, managerial legiti mations that are

based on irrationa l grounds should be disrespected , as they can lead to arbitrariness

and abuse of power. Institution al dynamics may either permit or inhibi t such uses of

irrationalit y. Thus, the proposed f ramework should be considered along side the per‐

spective of rhetorical institutionalism.