Impact of Perceived Organizational Justice on Organizational Commitment

7/17/2019 Impact of Perceived Organizational Justice on Organizational Commitment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/impact-of-perceived-organizational-justice-on-organizational-commitment 1/7

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business Vol. 1, Issue. 9, (pp.92- 98) September, October, 2011

92

Impact of Perceived Organizational Justice on Organizational

Commitment of Faculty: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan

Prof. Dr. Muhammad Ehsan Malik Dean, Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences/Director, Institute of Business Administration (IBA)/Director

General, Gujranwala Campus, University of the Punjab (Pakistan) Email: [email protected]

Basharat Naeem Lecturer at IBA, University of the Punjab, Quaid-e-Azam Campus, Lahore (Pakistan) & Ph.D. (Management Sciences)

Scholar at COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), Islamabad Campus (Pakistan),

Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Research in perceived organizational justice got paramount importance in business organizations context by

management researchers and psychologist for the last more than 35 years considering its empirically endorsed

impact on numerous workforce behaviors and attitudes such as job satisfaction, extra-role performance,organizational commitment, job performance, motivation, trust and turnover intentions. However, scantliterature shed light on whether or not teachers’ fairness perceptions regarding rewards allocation, its

procedures and interpersonal treatment foster their organizational commitment particularly in higher education

setting. To this particular end, the researchers conducted survey research to explore what organizational justice

dimensions influence organizational commitment of the faculty taking into consideration their position.

Regression analysis of responses from 463 faculty members revealed that distributive and procedural justice

had significant positive impact on organizational commitment of junior faculty whereas senior facultyexperienced improved commitment on the provision of distributive justice only. Implications for academic

administrators and future researchers are presented.

Keywords: Organizational Justice, Organizational Commitment, Faculty, Higher Education Institutions

(HEIs), Pakistan

INTRODUCTION

In today’s modern society, intense competition and rapid growth of economy changed the employees’ beat to

work which affects their mental and physical development at workplace. In order to understand the

organizational behavior, this is inevitable to address the question of how employee’s behaviors and attitudes

influenced by the organizational and individual psychological factors (Van Dick, 2004; Rhoades & Eisenberger,

2002). Organizational justice which primarily focuses on the fairness at workplace put stronger impact on

different attitudes of the employees like turnover intentions, absenteeism, role breadth, job satisfaction, job

performance, leader-member exchange, trust, leadership and organizational commitment (e.g. Bakhshi &

Kumar, 2009; Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2007; Hubbel & Chory-Assad, 2005; Byrne, 2005; Wat and Shaffer,

2005; Greenberg, 2004; Judge & Colquitt, 2004; Vermunt & Steensma, 2003; Boer et al., 2002; Colquitt et al.,

2001).

In the review of organizational justice, Greenberg (1990) notes that "social scientists have long recognized the

importance of the ideals of justice as a basic requirement for the effective functioning of organizations and the

personal satisfaction of the individuals they employ." Greenberg also declared the justice as the “f irst virtue of

social institutions”. Organizational justice had three broad dimensions e.g. distributive, procedural and

interactional justice (Martinez-tur et al., 2006; Yalmiz & Tasdan, 2009). Distributive justice, was known as the

first dimension of justice which appear in the literature, refers to “the fairness of outcomes an employee receivessuch as pay and promotions (Moorman, 1991)”. Procedural justice was introduced by the Thibaut and Walker in

1975 while working in dispute resolution procedures and further defines by the Moormon (1991) as “the

fairness of the procedures used in determining employee outcomes” whereas interactional justice describes as

“the interpersonal treatment employees receive from decision makers and the adequacy with which the formal

decision-making procedures are explained” (Greenberg, 1990).

As stated above, numerous researches were conducted on organizational justice and work attitudes of the

employees. Most of these studies were conducted on western culture particularly in business context and so far




93

limited literature is available in South Asian context. So, the main purpose this research investigation was to

examine to what extent organizational justice dimensions have impact on organizational commitment of faculty

members, as critical human resource for sustainable competitive advantage, employed by public and private

sector higher education institutions in Pakistan.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Business performance is often associated with the employee’s commitment which is considered as preconditioncooperative behavior. Among numerous other factors which improve commitment, justice perception is

recognized as the most sensitive and valued factor considered by the employees. The concept of fairness and

justice is known as organizational justice and taken as explanatory factor in organizational environments

(Leventhal, 1976; Deutsch, 1975; Adams, 1965). Organizational justice can be defined as the employees’

perception to what extent they are treated fairly and honestly (Elovainio et al., 2005) and whether the process

and results obtained at workplace are fair or not (Hubbel & Chory-Assad, 2005). Literature reports multiplefacets of organizational justice namely distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice

(Cropanzano et al. 2001; Konovsky, 2000; Greenberg, 1990). Distributive justice, first justice construct, is

mainly concerned with the employee perception about the fairness of outcomes (Greenberg, 1987; 1990) such as

financial rewards received from their organization (Greenberg, 2006; Colquitt et al., 2006; Ramamoorthy &

Flood, 2004; Elovainio et al., 2004; Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002). In organizational settings, employee judgethe fairness and justice after evaluating different situations according to given criteria and compare it with thestandard rules (Colquitt et al., 2006; Alder & Ambrose, 2005; Hubbel & Chory-Assad, 2005).

Procedural justice mainly focuses on processes and methods through which outcome decision is made (Ding &

Lin, 2006; Farmer et al., 2003; Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997; Greenberg, 1990). This is employees’

perception about fairness in the rules and regulations which are used to make a decision that will lead to the

ultimate outcome (Ding & Lin, 2006; Byrne, 2005; DeConinck & Bachmann, 2005; Greenberg, 2004; Elovainio

et al., 2004; Aryee et al. 2002; Greenberg, 2001). Procedural justice consist of various model like control model

of procedural justice proposed the indirect relationship of employees and outcomes in the process of decision-

making whereas process control refers to the employee’s voice during the process of decision making

(Hegtvedt, Clay-Warner, & Johnson, 2003) and help the employees to manipulate material outcomes (Price et

al., 2006; Ding & Lin, 2006). Leiter and Maslach (2009) noted in their study that there is relationship of control

with reward and fairness and facilitate the employees to work accordingly to achieve their needs and developsustaining work life. Interactional justice is considered as key aspect in workplace settings because of its

relationship with unfair and fair treatment (Martı´nez-Tur et al., 2006; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Frey,

1997). Afterward, literature proved two subcategory of interactional justice known as interpersonal and

informational justice and should considered as separately (Colquitt, 2001). Greenberg (1990) proposed two

specific type of interpersonal treatment; (1) informational justice who primarily focuses why the specificoutcome of an activity had come out in certain fashion, and (2) interpersonal justice provides the degree of

which employees were treated with dignity, politeness and respect by people.

Organizational commitment is an important aspect in management literature. It refers to the state in which

people sense loyalty with their respective organization, aligned themselves with organizational goals and value

it (Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2007; Fang, 2001). Fairness and justice offers opportunity to the employees to

feel sense of belonging which considered as significant interpreter in organizational commitment. Procedural

justice gives the “employees to consider that managerial and organizational decisions are legitimate and thislegitimacy promotes commitment of the employees to their organizations (Tallman, Phipps, & Matheson,

2009)”. Robbins et al. (2000) proved the reciprocal association among distributive justice and procedural justice

with organizational commitment. In another study, Lambert et al (2007) found that procedural justice and

distributive justice significantly contributed to employees’ organizational commitment. However, Griffin and

Hepburn (2005) reported that correctional officers at Arizona did not perceive any significant association among

organizational justice and organizational commitment. In Colquitt et al. (2001) meta-analytical review of

organizational justice literature, he observed that distributive and procedural justice were significant predictors

of organizational commitment. Later on Aryee, Budhwar, and Chen (2002) and Ramamoorthy and Flood (2004)

found that procedural and distributive justice were linked to higher level of organizational commitment.

As regards teachers, Zaman, Ali and Ali (2010) conducted a research on private school teachers of Pakistan and

concluded that distributive justice and procedural justice had positive impact on organizational commitment. In

another study, Bakhshi, Kumar and Rani (2009) reported positive relationship between distributive and procedural justice with organizational commitment of medical college employees in India. Likewise, Ponnu and




94

Chuah (2010) investigated the relationship of justice and organizational commitment of the employees working

diverse organizations at Malaysia, and found that perceptions of procedural justice and distributive justice

positively but significantly explaining variance in organizational commitment. Consistent with the prior

findings, Najafi et al. (2011) also concluded that educational experts of different universities reported higher

commitment levels by the provision of organizational justice.

RESEARCH METHODS

Self-administered survey questionnaire was used to collect the data from the study participants. The detailedmethods and procedures are presented hereunder for addressing the following research question:

Research Question 1: Do perceived organizational justice dimensions such as distributive, procedural and

interactional justice influence organizational commitment of faculty?

Research Question 2: Does faculty position moderate the relationships between organizational justice perceptions and organizational commitment?

Data was collected from five Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) accredited universities and

degree awarding institutes operating in Lahore (Pakistan). One of them was a public sector university

considered as one of the largest institution of higher learning in Pakistan. On the other hand, four universitiesand institutes were operating in private sector. The study participants were the faculty members who were eitherhaving the regular or contract employment status in these academic institutions. Seven hundred and fifty

questionnaires were distributed in December 2009 to February, 2010 among faculty members and after multiple

follow ups resulted in 467 (63 %) statistically usable questionnaires.

Organizational justice and its three dimensions such as distributive, procedural and interactional justice were

measured by using the scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993). Organizational commitment scale

consists of 6 items developed in 1991 (General Social Survey). These items were derived from Linclon and

Kalleberg’s (1990) American – Japanese work commitment study (cited in Marsden et al., 1993).The inter-item

consistency scores of distributive justice (α=0.84), procedural justice (α=0.90), interactional justice (α=0.93) and

organizational commitment (α=0.68) were found to be adequate for the analysis purpose. Five point Likert scale

was used to assess the perceptions of the faculty members whereby 1 refers to strongly disagree and 5 as

strongly agree. Respondents were also asked about their demographic profile such as gender, age, designation,education and job experience, etc. Regression analyses were employed separately for Lecturer, Assistant

Professors, Associate Professors and Professor in public and private higher education institutions to testify the

research questions.

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 1 reflects the demographic characteristics of the faculty serving in higher education institutions (HEIs) of

Pakistan. Male respondents were in majority (66%). For age, forty three percent (202) faculty members were

between 31 to 44 years. As regard marital status, 69% faculty members were married. Most of the faulty held

Master degree (187) followed by M. Phil (172) and PhD (105). Of the respondents, about 53 percent had job

experience up to 5 years, 26 percent between 6 to 10 years, 09 percent between 11 to 15 years and 11 percent

more than 15 years. About 63 percent of the faculty (292) was working as Lecturer, 27 percent (124) asAssistant Professor, 9 percent as Associate Professor and Professor. Sixty two percent (288) of the faculty was

serving in public sector and about 36 percent (166) in private sector HEIs of Pakistan.

Table 1: Demographic Profile of Respondents (N=467)

Characteristics Frequency % Characteristics Frequency %

Gender:

MaleFemale

Missing

310157

6634

Marital Status:

MarriedUnmarried

Missing

321140

06

6930

01

Age:

<25 years

25-30 years

31-44 years> 44 years

34

148

20272

07

33

4315

Education:

Master degree

MS / M. Phil

PhDMissing

187

172

10503

40

37

2300




95

Missing 11 02

Designation:

Lecturer

Assistant Professor

Associate Professor &

Professor

Missing

292

124

44

07

63

27

09

01

Job Experi ence:

1-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

>15 years

Missing

249

119

44

49

06

53

26

09

11

01Type of HEI:

Public sector

Private sector

Missing

288

166

13

62

36

02

Table # 2 shows the descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviations.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Study Constructs (N=467)

Study Var iables Mean Std. Deviati on

Distributive Justice (DJ) 3.78 .90

Procedural Justice (PJ) 3.54 .95

Interactive Justice (IJ) 4.10 1.00

Organizational Commitment (composite) 3.65 .71

The table # 3 is indicative of stepwise regression analyses for Lecturers. Organizational commitment wasregressed on three dimensions of justice such as distributive justice, procedural justice and interactive justice.

Distributive justice contributed 33 percent unique variance whereas procedural justice explained 4 percent

variability in organizational commitment. The results showed that distributive justice had relatively stronger

positive impact (β = .43, t = 7.57, p<0.001) on lecturers’ organizational commitment than procedural justice (β =

.24, t = 4.21, p<0.001).

Table # 03: Regression (Organizational Commitment) for Lecturers

Distributive Justice (DJ)

R 2 Change 0.33β (t-statistic) 0.43* (7.57)

Procedural Justice (PJ)

R Change 0.04

β (t-statistic) 0.24* (4.21)

Model F – statistic 83.25*

* Signif icant at 0.001 level: One-tail ed

Results of regression analysis (table # 04) showed that distributive justice explained 20 percent (R 2

change =

0.20) variance in organizational commitment of Assistant Professors and had positive impact on it. However,only 3 percent variance was explained by procedural justice (R

2Change = 0.03) whereas no significant impact

was observed of interactive justice on organizational commitment. The results showed that distributive justice

had relatively stronger positive impact (β = .33, t = 3.43, p<0.001) on Assistant Professors organizationalcommitment than procedural justice (β = .23, t = 2.30, p<0.05).

Table 04: Regression (Organizational Commitment) for Assistant Professors

Distributive Justice (DJ)

R change 0.20

β (t-statistic) 0.33* (3.43)

Procedural Justice (PJ)

R 2Change 0.03

β (t-statistic) 0.23** (2.30)


* Signif icant at 0.001 level: One-tail ed, * * Signif icant at 0.05 level: One-tailed




96

Table # 05 depicts that only distributive justice accounted for 30 percent variance (R 2

change = 0.30, F=17.70*)

in organizational commitment of senior professors (Associate Professor and Professor). Interestingly neither

procedural justice nor interactive justice had significant impact on organizational commitment of the seniorfaculty.

Table 05: Regression (Organizational Commitment) for Associate Professors & Professors

Distributive Justice (DJ)R

change 0.30

β (t-statistic) 0.55* (4.21)


* Signif icant at 0.001 level: One-tail ed

As regards moderating impact of faculty position on the relationship between organizational justice dimensionson organizational commitment, it was observed that distributive justice had relatively greatest impact on

organizational commitment among senior faculty (β = .33), followed by lecturers (β = .43) and then by assistant

professors (β = .33). However the influence of procedural justice among lecturers (β = .24) and assistant

professors (β = .23) was not statistically different.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

According to the recent research endeavors (Najafi et al., 2011, Malik, Nawab, Naeem & Danish, 2010; Park et

al, 2005), organizational commitment was observed to be one of the extensively studied topics in the

management literature. It seems pretty logical as the committed workforce particularly the faculty members

could perform effectively to develop the intellectual capital of the future leaders for any nation. This very fact prompted the researchers to investigate what dimensions of organizational justice foster organizational

commitment among faculty of higher education institutions and whether or not these relationships are

moderated by faculty position. Based on the analyses, it can be concluded that distributive and procedural

justice could have their role in making faculty committed to their institutions. Interestingly, procedural justice

did not act as antecedent of organizational commitment. These study findings were consistent with the prior

research that distributive justice and procedural justice result into improve organizational commitment (e.g.

Robbins et al., 2000; Aryee, et al. 2002; Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2004; Lambert et al. 2007; Bakhshi et al. 2009;

Zaman et al. 2010; Ponnu & Chuah (2010); Najafi et al. (2011). Only relationship between distributive justiceand organizational commitment was moderated by faculty position. As regards practical implications, lecturers

and assistant professors serving in higher education institutions could be made more committed by ensuring the

fairness in provision of rewards and its procedures by their respective institutions. However, commitment may

be fostered in senior faculty by ensuring the higher level of distributive justice. Future researchers, while

reviewing our recommendations, should take in to consideration that the current study does not provide

conclusive evidence as it followed exploratory research design. Another advice for researchers is to explore how

multiple dimensions of justice could have impact on other attitudinal and behavioral variables such as job

involvement, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, workplace spirituality, job performance and

turnover.

REFERENCES

1.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp 267-299), New York: Academic Press

2. Alder, G. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2005). Towards understanding fairness judgments associated withcomputer performance monitoring: An integration of the feedback, justice, and monitoring research. Human

Resource Management Review, 15, 43 – 67.

3. Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between

organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 23, 267 – 285.

4. Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between

organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 23, 267 – 285.

5. Bakhshi A, Kumar K, Rani E (2009). Organizational justice perceptions as predictor of job satisfaction and

organizational commitment. Int. J. Bus. Manage., 4(9): 145-154

6.

Boer, E. M. D., Bakker, A. B., Syroit, J. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2002). Unfairness at work as a predictor ofabsenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 181-197.




97

7. Boer, E. M. D., Bakker, A. B., Syroit, J. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2002). Unfairness at work as a predictor of

absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 181-197.

8. Byrne, Z. S. (2005). Fairness reduces the negative effects of organizational politics on turnover intentions,

citizenship behavior and job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 175-200.

9. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-232.

10.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Yee NG, K. (2001). Justice at theMillennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.11. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative

theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 100,

110-127.

12. Colquitt, J.A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 386 – 400.

13. Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. InC. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), Interactional review of industrial and organizational psychology, 317-372.

New York: Wiley.

14. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics,

social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164 – 209.

15.

DeConinck, J., & Bachmann, D. (2005). An analysis of turnover among retail buyers. Journal of BusinessResearch, 58, 874-882.

16. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of

distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-150.

17. Ding, C. G., & Lin, C. P. (2006). Comparing the Effects of Determinants of Turnover Intentions Between

Taiwanese and U.S. Hospital Employees. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(4), 403-421.

18. Elovainio, M., Kivimaki, M., Steen, N., & Vahtera, J. (2004). Job decision latitude, organizational justice

and health: multilevel covariance structure analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 58, 1659-1669.

19. Elovainio, M., Van den Bos, K., Linna, A., Kivimaki, M., Ala-Mursula, L., Pentti, J., & Vahtera, J. (2005).

Combined effects of uncertainty and organizational justice on employee health: Testing the uncertainty

management model of fairness judgments among Finnish public sector employees. Social Science and

Medicine, 61(12), 2501-2512.

20. Fang, Y. (2001). Turnover propensity and its causes among Singapore nurses, an empirical study.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(5), 859 – 871.21. Farmer, S., Beehr, T., & Love, K. (2003). Becoming an undercover police officer: A note on fairness

perceptions, behavior, and attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 373−387.

22. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay

Raise Decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130.

23. Frey, F.M. (1997), “The management of justice through accounts: constructing acceptable justifications”,unpublished PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

24. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16,

399-432.

25. Greenberg, J. (2001). Setting the Justice Agenda: Seven Unanswered Questions about What, Why, and

How. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 210-219.

26. Greenberg, J. (2004). Stress Fairness to Fare No Stress: Managing Workplace Stress by Promoting

Organizational Justice. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 352-365.

27.

Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing Sleep Over Organizational Injustice: Attenuating Insomniac Reactions toUnderpayment Inequity With Supervisory Training in Interactional Justice. Journal of Applied Psychology,

91(1), 58 – 69.

28. Greenberg, J. 1987. Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the

ends? Journal of Applied Psychology 72, 55 – 61.

29. Hegtvedt, K. A., Clay-Warner, J., & Johnson, C. (2003). The Social Context of Responses to Injustice:

Considering the Indirect and Direct Effects of Group-Level Factors. Social Justice Research, 16(4), 343-

367.

30. Hubbel, A. P., & Chory-Assad, R. M. (2005). Motivating Factors: Perceptions of Justice and Their

Relationship with Managerial and Organizational Trust. Communication Studies, 56(1), 47-70.31. Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational Justice and Stress: The Mediating Role of Work-

Family Conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 395-404.

32. Konovsky, M. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal

of Management, 26, 489 – 511.




98

33. Kürsad Yilmaz, Murat Tasdan, (2009) "Organizational citizenship and organizational justice in Turkish

primary schools", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 47 Iss: 1, pp.108 – 126

34. Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Griffin, M. L. (2007). The impact of distributive and procedural justice on

correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice,

35, 644-656.

35. Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2003). The impact of workfamily conflict on correctional staff job

satisfaction. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 35−51.36. Leiter, M.P., & Maslach, C. (2009). Nurse turnover: the mediating role of burnout. Journal of Nursing

Management, 17, 331 – 339.37. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L.

Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91-131). New

York: Academic Press.

38. Malik, M. E., Nawab, S., Naeem, B., & Danish, R. Q. (2010). Job Satisfaction and Organizational

Commitment of University Teachers in Public Sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Business and

Management Vol. 5 (6). 17 – 26.39. Martínez-tur, V., Peiró, J.M., Ramos, J. & Moliner, C. (2006) Justice perceptions as predictors of customer

satisfaction: the impact of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 36, 100 – 119.

40. Moorman, R. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship

behaviours: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,845-855.

41. Najafi, S., Noruzy, A., Azar, H. K., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Dalvand, M. R. (2011). Investigating the

relationship between organizational justice, psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, organizational

commitment and organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical model. African Journal of Business

Management, Vol. 5(13), pp. 5241-5248.

42. Niehoff, B.P. & Moorman, R.H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of

monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556.

43. Park, S., Henkin, A.B., & Egley, R. (2005). Teacher team commitment, teamwork, and trust: exploring

associations, Journal of Educational Administration, 43(5), 462-79.

44. Ponnu, C. H., Chuah, C. C. (2010). Organizational commitment, organizational justice and employee

turnover in Malaysia. African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4(13), pp. 2676-2692.

45. Price, K. H., Lavelle, J. J., Henley, A. B., Cocchiara, F. K., & Buchanan, F. R. (2006). Judging the fairness

of voice-based participation across multiple and interrelated stages of decision making. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 212-226.

46. Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2004). Gender and Employee Attitudes: The Role of Organizational

Justice Perceptions. British Journal of Management, 15, 247 – 258.

47. Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2004). Gender and Employee Attitudes: The Role of Organizational

Justice Perceptions. British Journal of Management, 15, 247 – 258.48. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 87, 698 – 714.

49. Robbins, T. L., Summers, T. P., & Miller, J. L. (2000). Intra- and inter-justice relationships: Assessing the

direction. Human Relations, 53(10), 1329-1355.

50. Tallman, R., Phipps, K., & Matheson, D. (2009). Justice perception in Medical Administrative Governance.

International Journal of Business Research, 9(7), 147-155.

51. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

52.

Van Dick, R. (2004). My job is my castle: identification in organizational contexts. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T.Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 171 – 203).

Chichester, UK: Wiley.

53. Vermunt, R., & Steensma, H. (2003). Physiological Relaxation: Stress Reduction Through Fair Treatment.

Social Justice Research, 16(2), 135-149.

54. Wat, D. dan Shaffer, M.A. 2005. Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational citizenship

behavior. Personnel Review. 34(4):406-422.

55. Zaman, G., Ali, N., & Ali, N. (2010). Impact of Organizational Justice on Employees Outcomes: An

Empirical Evidence. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 3 (1).

Impact of Perceived Organizational Justice on Organizational Commitment

Documents

Transcript of Impact of Perceived Organizational Justice on Organizational Commitment