This research did not examine the subdimensions of justice in detail. In a recent article, Scott et al. (2009) argued that dimensions of organizational justice would differ for employees based on their managerial positions. Accordingly, this research will study the dimensions of organizational justice in detail and examine the potential differences between them in order to demonstrate a better understanding of what justice is from the perspective of supervisors (actors). Although organizational justice from the actor's perspective is a fairly new topic, Folger and Skarlicki (2001) conducted a study in an attempt to explain why managers do not always follow the rules of justice during workplace layoffs, the they explained by offering the Churchill effect which involves distancing the perpetrators of the damage. In other words, managers tend to avoid giving explanations to their fired employees. They also discussed another approach, that of cascading effects. In this model, an employee's experience in an organization influences both perceptions of the organization and behavior toward others. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay For example, supervisors' perceptions of interactional fairness are linked to subordinate perceptions of interactional fairness climate (Ambrose, Schminke, & Mayer, 2013). This suggests that how supervisors perceive their own treatment depends on superiors' factors and how subordinates perceive their fairness. Until recently, no research had studied supervisors' (actors') perceptions of organizational justice and compared them with subordinates' perceptions and this represents a major gap in organizational justice research as discussed by (Scott et al., 2009 ), and they also argued that very little is known about why managers decide to violate the rules of justice. Furthermore; they identified several fields that established theory about actors. These fields include aggression, discrimination, sexual harassment and prejudice. The proposed research will examine these areas in order to gain a better understanding of actors' perspectives and fully understand what is fair and how supervisors and subordinates perceive justice in the workplace. Most organizational justice research focuses on the recipient perspective, examining how recipients react to judicial decisions. However, little has been studied about actors' perceptions of justice. Actor-based justice research therefore represents a new avenue on a commonly investigated topic. In most organizational justice research, justice is seen as causing some other outcome. Employees who have different perceptions of justice respond differently. Attitudes and behaviors resulting from perceptions of justice are the primary focus. In research on organizational justice actors, justice is most commonly viewed as a dependent variable. Actors decide to adhere to or violate justice based on personal or situational characteristics (Scott et al, 2009). This research seeks to further investigate underdeveloped actors' perspectives on justice. Actor versus Recipient A more recent meta-analysis was conducted by Rupp, Shao et al. (2014). Unlike Colquitt et al. (2013), found evidence of the importance of perceptions of organizational justice vis-à-vis other sources, in wayssuch that it was related to organization-specific variables, and supervisor-focused justice was related to supervisor-specific variables. A recent meta-analysis was conducted by Colquitt et al. (2013) who examined 493 independent samples. Organizational justice was positively related to task performance and OCBs. These relationships were mediated by social exchange paradigms: trust, organizational support, organizational commitment, and leader-member exchange, but justice was negatively related to CWBs. As noted, organizational justice has been the focus of a considerable amount of research. Some important findings are described here to lay the foundation for this research proposal. Early studies on justice discovered a relationship between justice and many organizational outcomes. Research conducted by Moorman (1991) found that interactional justice (at that time classified as part of procedural justice) was significantly related to OCBs. Furthermore; A detailed meta-analysis conducted by Colquitt et al. (2001) based on 183 articles. The four types of justice were related to CWB, OCB, performance, and trust. They were also related to job commitment and satisfaction. However; It is important to note that procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice were correlated differently with each outcome, and Colquitt recommended that the dimensions be treated as four distinct dimensions. Likewise; in the same year, another meta-analysis was conducted by Cohen et al. (2001), who reviewed 190 studies, argued that organizational outcomes were related to organizational justice. Differences were found between the justice dimensions as they used the old three-dimensional categorization consisting of procedural, distributive, and interactional justice. Key Findings from the Organizational Justice Literature Interactional justice is the interpersonal treatment received from other employees or supervisors (Bies, 2001). It is based on kindness, justifications and truthfulness (Bies & Moag, 1986). Interactional justice is typically divided into two factors called interpersonal and informational justice. Informational justice involves providing clear explanations about the procedures used (Greenberg, 2011). Interpersonal justice means treating people with dignity and respect (Greenberg, 2011). Procedural justice is defined as the perceived fairness of the procedures used to determine outcomes (Greenberg, 2011). It is based on several factors, including consistency, bias, voice, accuracy, ethicality, and representativeness (Leventhal, 1980). Although they are often examined separately, researchers argue that distributive and procedural justice overlap, as they both deal with allocation (Cropanzano & Ambrose, 2001). Furthermore; procedural evaluations can be influenced by factors ranging from situational cues to national culture (Brockner, Ackerman, & Fairchild, 2001). Organizational justice has been defined as “employees' perceptions of fairness in organizations along with their behavioral and emotional reactions” (Greenberg, 2011, p. 271). The concept of organizational justice is typically considered to have four dimensions: distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal. Distributive justice is the perceived fairness of the distribution of resources and rewards. It is based on equality, needs and fairness (Greenberg, 2011). According to equity theory (Adams, 1965) people compare what they put into work (their input) with what they get (output). If rewards are imbalanced, employees will react differently (for example, working less or increasing their performance). These”,.