Organizational Justice the Sound Investment in Organizations

European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 52 September, 2012 © EuroJournals, Inc. 2012 http://www.eurojournals.com/EJEFAS.htm

Organizational Justice: The Sound

Investment in Organizations

Osama AbdulKarim Hazzi Department of Business Administration

Faculty of Economics, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria Tel: +963-932-925596

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract The field of organizational justice continues to be studied by several researchers over a long time.Organizational justice is considered as vital asset for organizational survival. It has great benefits for employees and organizations alike.These include higher levels of job satisfaction, more exhibiting of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), and more promoting of organizational commitment. To this particular end, construct of organizational justice, its dimensions, its impact on organizational variables as well as some suggestions for future studies was demonstrated in this work. Keywords: Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Citizenship

Behaviours, Organizational Commitment, Sound Investment 1. Introduction The globalization and the increasing of the international competition which the organizations face, push them to increase its interest in the human resource, which it is considered as a core element for success of the organizations. Focusing on the organizational variables which have a good impact on the employees is one of the most important feasible ways for that.

Organizational justice is one of these variables which have such impact on the employees in the organizations. Moore (1978) and Okun (1975) claimed 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 (as cited in Greenberg, 1990b).This concept, however, has been the target of a great deal of researches, and it has important implications for organizations and their employees (Greenberg, 1990b).Cropanzano, Bowen, and Gilliland (2007)also asserted that organizational justice has the potential to create the powerful benefits for organizations and employees alike.Kim (2009) found when employees who were treated fairly by their company, they tended to develop and maintain communal relationships with the company.

However, organizational justice, people's perceptions of fairness in organizations, isone of the topics of greatest interest to scientists in the fields of industrial-organizational psychology, human resources management, and organizational behavior in recent years (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). Colquitt (2001) also claimed that the concept of organizational justice has become an increasingly visible construct in the social sciences over the past few decades.Moreover, Colquitt and Greenberg (2003) claimed that organizational justice was cited as the most popular topic of papers submitted to the organizational behavior division of the Academy of Management for several years during the mid-late 1990s (as cited in Kim, 2009). Due to the importance of organizational justice in the organizations, the present article comes to characterize some of the most important sides of the organizational justice.

164 European Journal of Economics Finance and Administrative Sciences - Issue 52 (2012)

2. Notions of the Organizational Justice Colquitt et al., (2005) referred to the development of organizational justice research as a distinctive setof ‘waves’ beginning in the 1950’s with distributive justice; followed by the procedural justice wave in the mid-1970s; and then the emergence of the interpersonal justice wave in the 1980s (as cited in Whisenant&Smucker, 2009).

Moorman (1991) defined the organizational justice as the term used to describe the role of fairness as it directly relates to the workplace. He mentioned that the organizational justice is concerned with the ways in which employees determine if they have been treated fairly in their jobs and the ways in which those determinations influence other work-related variables.Greenberg (1996) defined the organizational justice as a term which expresses the employees’ perceptions about how fairly they are treated in the organizations and how such perceptions affect organizational outcomes such as satisfaction (as cited in Najafi, Noruzy, Azar, Nazari-Shirkouhi & Dalvand, 2011, p.5243). Cropanzano and Greenberg (1997) claimedthat,in general,the study of organizational justice has focused on two major issues: employees' responses to the things they receive-that is, outcomes and the means by which they obtain these outcomes-that is,procedure.

The term of organizational justice, however, refers to the extent to which employees perceive workplace procedures, interactions, and outcomes to be fair in nature, which fairness, often, will only become relevant and tangible when violation of said justice occurs (Baldwin, 2006). These perceptions can influence attitudes and behaviors of the employees. Cropanzano, Bowen, and Gilliland (2007) gave a similar definition of the previous ones, but in comprehensive form when they defined it as a personal evaluation about the ethical and moral standing of managerial conduct.

Greenberg (1996), moreover, claimed that the perceptions of procedure are more useful for explaining attitudes toward institutions, and distributive justice perceptions have a greater influence over attitudes towards a result of decision (as cited in Rifai, 2005).These perceptions relate to multi-dimensions of organizational justice (Colquitt, 2001). 2.1. Distributive Justice

Early studies on organizational justice were more focused on distributive justice. Distributive justice is actually grounded in Adams’ (1965) equity theory (as cited inLoi, Hang-yue& Foley, 2006).Folger and Greenberg (1985), however, defined the distributive justice as thefairness of the outcomes the employees receives. Colquitt (2001) claimed that distributive justice is fostered where outcomes are consistent with implicit norms for allocation, such as equity or equality.

In return to the root of the distributive justice, we would find Adams (1965), whoused the social exchange theory framework to evaluate the fairness,refer to the distributive justice as the fairness of the outcomes not to the level of outcomes per se. Which comparing the ratio of one's inputs (e.g., experience, education) with that of a comparison other is a way that Adams suggested to determine whether an outcome was fair or not (as cited in Colquitt et al., 2001). In other words, Adams (1965) conceptualized fairness by stating that employees determine whether they have been treated fairly at work by comparing their own payoff ratio of outcomes (such as pay or status) to inputs (such as effort or time) to the ratio of their co-workers (as cited in Bakhshi, Kumar, & Rani, 2009). Simply, Adams (1965) suggested that an individual calculates his/her perceived input–outcome ratio and then compares this ratio with that of a referent other. Unequal input–outcome ratios between the individualand the referent other (i.e. the presence of inequity) leads to a feeling of unfairnessexperienced by both parties. Motivated by this feeling of discomfort, both parties wouldrectify the unjust situation by reacting behaviorally (e.g. altering job performance) (as cited in Loi et al., 2006).Since that time distributive justice became more pertinent in organizational behavior research.

HP PC

Highlight

HP PC

Highlight

HP PC

Highlight


2.2. Procedural Justice

While distributive justice is concerned with perceptions of fairness about organizational allocations and outcomes which employees receive, simply, Folger and Greenberg (1985) defined the procedural justice as the fairness of the procedures used to determine the outcomes the employees receive. Thibaut and Walker (1975) discussed mainly two criteria of procedural justice depending on their observations from courtroom sittings.The first on was process control (e.g., the ability to voice one's views and arguments during a procedure), while the second one was decision control (e.g., the ability to influence the actual outcome itself) (as cited in Colquitt et al., 2001). Moreover, Thibaut and Walker (1975) claimed that the procedural justice is fostered where through voice during a decision-making process or influence over the outcome (as cited in Colquitt, 2001).

Later on, Leventhal, Karuza, and Fry, (1980) extended a list of determinants of proceduraljustice which considered as Leventhal's theory or Leventhal's rules. These rules concentrated on six rules thata procedure should meet to be perceived as fair. Procedures should (a) be consistence,(b) be free from bias, (c) accuracy, (d) correctability, (e) representativeness, and (f)ethicality (as cited in Triana, Wagstaff, & Kim, 2012). Moreover, Leventhal et al., (1980) claimed that the procedural justice is also fostered by adherence to fair process criteria such as consistency, lack of bias, correctability, representation, accuracy, and ethicality (as cited in Colquitt, 2001). 2.3. InteractionalJustice

Bies and Moag (1986) was the first study the interactional justice construct introduced (as cited in Colquitt, 2001). Bies and Moag (1986) mentioned that the interactional justice refers to the quality of interpersonal processes and treatment of individuals (i.e. being treated with dignity and respect), as well as the extent to which to which reasons behind the outcomes are explained (as cited in Elamin & Alomaim, 2011). That definition includes the two dimensions of interactional justice, the interpersonal as well as the informational one, which Colquitt (2001) asserted that they should be considered as separately. Moorman (1991, 1993), however, referred to interactional justice as a one of the two dimensions of procedural justice, while the other one is formal procedures. In both of his studies, he referred to the interactional justice to interpersonal treatment of the supervisors with the employeesdepending.

On the other hand, Bies and Moag (1986) identified four criteria for interactional justice which are (a) justification (e.g., explaining the basis for decisions), (b) truthfulness (e.g., an authority figure being candid and not engaging in deception), (c) respect (e.g., being polite rather than rude), and (d) propriety (e.g., refraining from improper remarks or prejudicial statements) (as cited in Colquitt, 2001). Moreover, Greenberg (1990a, 1993b) asserted that, in practice, these four criteria have been researched and have been shown along two dimensions: explanations "Informational" and sensitivity "Interpersonal". Greenberg (1993a) and Shapiro, Buttner, and Barry (1994) have also been shown that the two dimensions of informational and interpersonal have independent effects of one another.

However, Colquitt (2001) suggested that organizational justice is best conceptualized as four distinct dimensions: procedural justice, distributive justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice depending on the seminal work in the justice literature.He asserted that interactional justice should be broken down into its interpersonal and informational justice components, as they too had differential effects.Moreover, Colquitt et al., (2001) asserted that distributive and procedural justice are distinct concepts in nature, as they also gave evidence that the procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice are distinct constructs that can be empirically distinguished from one another. 2.3.1. Interpersonal Justice Colquitt et al. (2001) referred to the notion of interpersonal justice to how people are treatedwith politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities or by the other parties that could involved in carrying out procedures or determining outcomes. They mentioned that interpersonal justice acts primarily to alter reactions to decision outcomes, because sensitivity can make people feel better about an unfavorable


outcome.Greenberg (1993b), previously, mentioned to that when he referred that interpersonal justice may be sought by providing knowledge about procedures that demonstrate regard for people’s concerns. He gave example about people who receiving negative outcomes such as a rejected proposal or denied job were more likely to accept those results as fair when they received a reasonable explanation regarding the procedure used than when no such justification was provided. For explanations to be perceived as fair, however, they must also be recognized as genuine inintent and based on sound reasoning. 2.3.2. Informational Justice Colquitt et al. (2001) referred to the notion of informational justice to the explanationsprovided to people that give information about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomeswere distributed in a certain fashion.In other words, informational justice indicates on how the information presented in the society fairly in terms of location, time and situation (Goudarzvandchegini, Gilaninia, &Abdesonboli, 2011).

However, Colquitt et al., (2001) referred that interpersonal justice acts primarily to alter reactions to decision outcomes, informational justice acts primarily to alter reactions to procedures, in that explanation provide the information needed to evaluate structural aspects of the process. Greenberg (1993b), previously, mentioned that when he referred that informational justice may be sought by providing knowledge about procedures that demonstrate regard for people’s concerns. He gave example about people who receiving negative outcomes such as a rejected proposal or denied job were more likely to accept those results as fairwhen they received a reasonable explanation regarding the procedure used than when no such justificationwas provided. And for explanations to be perceived as fair, however, they must also be recognized as genuine inintent and based on sound reasoning.

Colquitt (2001), however, suggested that both of informational or interpersonal justice could be a formalized aspectof a decision-making system, rather than an authority figure. For example, a company's website could offer easily accessed explanations of key decisions and deliver that information in a friendly and respectful manner. 3. The Impact of Organizational Justice: Empirical Support Based on related reviews, there are many organizational variables have link with organizational justice in two ways, antecedents as well as consequences. Greenberg (1990b), however, suggested that organizational justice research may potentially explain many organizational behavior outcome variables.In this section of this work, I turn to a review of evidence in support of the importance of organizational justice ـــin multi-dimensions terms ـــ in accounting for the most frequently studied organizational variables which organizational justice as well as its dimensions has impact on. 3.1. Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is considered one of the outcomes of organizational justice. It has been studiedwith the fairness by researchers over a long time in different sectors in different countries according to many related reviews as we will see that in this section from this study.

Alexander and Ruderman (1987) investigatedthe relationship between fairness and organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction among government employees at six Federal installations. The findings indicated that both of the procedural and the distributive measures were significantly related to measures of job satisfaction. Proceduralfairness accounted for significantly more variance than distributive fairness in all the studied organizational outcomes including job satisfaction, but except for turnover intention.The study of Moorman (1991) also considered one of the works which found that perceptions of organizational justice influenced job satisfaction. It found that all dimensions of organizational justice represented in following, distributive dimension, and both dimensions of procedural justice, formal procedures and interactional justice, influenced overall job


satisfaction among employees of two medium-sized companies in the Midwestern United States. Schappe (1998) confirmed the significant correlations expected between job satisfaction and organizational justice among employees of a mid-Atlantic insurance company. That relationship was confirmed through both of the structural dimension and the interpersonal dimension of procedural justice. The study of Colquitt et al. (2001) also considered as one of these studies which showed the relationship between organizational justice and some of organizational variables such as job satisfaction. They illustrated the overall and unique relationships among distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational dimensions of organizational justice and several organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performance.They found that both of distributive and procedural dimensions have high correlation with overall job satisfaction. As they indicated that the procedural dimension is more important antecedent of job satisfaction, while both of interpersonal and informational dimensions of organizational justice were moderately related to job satisfaction.Rifai (2005) is another study which concluded there are significant relationships between both procedural justice and distributive justice and global job satisfaction among nurses who are working for private hospitals in West Sumatera and Riau Province in Indonesia.In the study of Bakhshi et al.,(2009), they claimed that distributive justice is just significantly related to job satisfaction which procedural justice is not.Elamin and Alomaim (2011) is also study which showed that each of distributive, procedural and interactional dimensions of organizational justice were significant predictor of job satisfaction for the foreign and Saudi workers group in range of industries including banking, health care, education, manufacturing, transportation and communication. 3.2. Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Organ (1988b) believedthat fairness perceptions may influence organizational citizenship behavior, OCB, by prompting an employee to define his or her relationship with the organization as one of social exchange. If employees consider themselves in conditions ofsocial exchange, they may be more likely to exhibit organizational citizenship behavior and to benefit their organization, then.(as cited in Moorman, 1991).

The study of Moorman (1991), however, included support for a relationship between perceptions of procedural justice, formal procedural and interactional justice, and four of five citizenship dimensions, altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic virtue, among the employees who work in two medium-sized companies in the Midwestern United States. Conversely, perceptions of distributive justice failed to influence any dimension of citizenship.However, interactional justice predicted all the organizational citizenship behavior dimensions but civic virtue, and distributive justice and formal procedures were not directly related.Organ and Moorman (1993) also suggested during a review of the empirical related literature that fairnessـــ in both of distributive and procedural terms ـــ rather than job satisfaction, accounts for organizational citizenship behavior; and that the evidence points toward procedural and interactional fairness as both empirically and conceptually critical in the fairness-organizational citizenship behavior relationship.Konovsky and Organ (1996) also a study which showed that fairness and satisfaction had independent effects on all the dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior, altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic virtue, among the employees who work in hospital located in the south central United States. Moreover, that study showed that there are significant, positive relationships between formal procedures and courtesy, sportsmanship, and conscientiousness best described the relationship between perceptions of justice and employee citizenship. On the other hand, that study showed a negative relationship between interactional justice and sportsmanship also emerged.Chegini (2009) is another study which showed that all the organizational justice dimensions, distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational,are positively related to organizational citizenship behavior among the staff of Rasht governmental organizations in Iran-Guilan.Goudarzvandchegini et al., (2011)is also a study which be added to these ones which showed that there is a relationship between dimensions of organizational justice, distributive justice, procedural


justice, interactional justice and informational justice, and organizational citizenship behavior among employees who work in the Rasht public hospitals in Iran. 3.3. Organizational Justice and Organizational Commitment

Mowday et al., (1982), however, claimed that organizational commitment is an identification with and interest in the overall effectiveness and success of the organization (as cited in Erturk, 2007). On the other hand, Malik and Naeem (2011) claimed that organizational commitment is an important aspect in management literature. They referred that among numerous factors which improve commitment, organizational justice is recognized as the most sensitive and valued factor considered by the employees. So, studying the impact of organizational justice on organizational commitment is a worth subject to be researched. Organizational commitment, however, has been studied in the public, private, and non-profit sector, and more recently internationally as we will see that in this section from this study.

Cohen-Charash, Spector (2001) showed that affective commitment is predicted by all justice types, distributive, procedural and interactional dimensions, but best by procedural justice. On the other hand, they found that procedural, distributive and interactional justices negatively predict continuance commitment, while normative commitment data exist only for procedural justice.Hassan (2002)also showed that both distributive and procedural justice factors made significant contributions to organizational commitment among the middle and lower level managers who work in the banking and finance, production and manufacturing, and service sectors in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia.Erturk (2007), which studied the relationship between perceived organizational fairness, distributive, procedural and interactional, and affective commitment across blue-collar workers who remain employed after layoffs in five different service companies in Turkey, showed that distributive justice was found to be significantly related to the affective commitment of survivors, while procedural justice was not found to be positively associated with the affective commitment of survivors in the service industry. The analysis also yields that interactional justice is strongly and positively associated with the affective commitment of survivors.Zaman, Ali, and Ali (2010) is also one work of these ones which showed that organizational justice, distributive justice and procedural justice, has a significant relationship with some organizational variables which researched in that study. Organizational commitment of the teaching staffs, who work in private sector schools of KPK in Pakistan, is one of these variables which organizational justice has a significant relationship with.Malik and Naeem (2011) showed that distributive and procedural justice had significant positive impact on organizational commitment of junior faculty in Pakistan whereas senior faculty experienced improved commitment on the provision of distributive justice only. 4. Concluding Thoughts for Further Research Injustice means a negative relationship between the employees and their organization. That situation of injustice provokes employees to reform that relationship with their organization again. So, justice in organizations is a sound investment that the employers, supervisor, managers or the authority figure should smoothly deal with, especially when they take decisions.

On the other hand, organizational justice was studied with many organizational variables not mentioned in this work that we recommended to be researched in further works, for example but not limited to, the study of Bolat (2010), which showed that the quality of the leader-member exchange, LMX, influences employees’ perceptions of distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice, who work in service sector, hotels in Ankara, Turkey. The study of Kamalian, Yaghoubi and Moloudi(2010), which the results illustrated that there is positive significant correlation between the mean scores of empowerment and dimensions of organizational justice, distributive, procedural and interactional dimensions among the employees who work in public company in Iran.Moreover, some of studies which mentioned above in this work, dealt with variables not mentioned above like turnover


intentions and absenteeism (Colquitt et al., 2001), which showed that organizational justice perceptions,distributive, procedural interpersonal and informational dimensions, strongly effect the attitude of the workers such as job satisfaction, turnover intentions and organization commitment and also workplace behavior such as absenteeism and organizational citizenship behavior. The study of Zaman, Ali, and Ali (2010) is also a study which showed that organizational justice, distributive justice and procedural justice, has a significant relationship with employees’ outcomes which are commitment, job satisfaction and turnover intention.

Organizational justice, however, is a long and wide road to get start with. So,this work concerned with the organizational variables which most studied with fairness according to many related literature reviews, in high hoping that this work will help researchers in their further researches. References 1] Alexander, Sheldon., and Ruderman, Marian. (1987). The role of procedural and

distributivejustice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research 1 (2), pp. 177-198. doi:10.1007/BF01048015.

2] Bakhshi, Arti.,Kumar, Kuldeep., and Rani, Ekta. (2009). Organizational Justice Perceptions as Predictor of Job Satisfaction and Organization Commitment. International Journal of Business and Management 4 (9), pp. 145-154.

3] Baldwin, Susanna. (2006). Organizational justice. Retrieved fromhttp://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pdflibrary/mp73.pdf.

4] Bolat, Oya-Inci. (2010). Therelashionship between lader-member exchange and organizational justice in hotels.European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences 26, pp. 115-125.

5] Chegini, Mehrdad Goudarzvand. (2009). The Relationship between organizational justice andorganizational citizenship behavior. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration 1 (2), pp. 173-176.

6] Cohen-Charash, Yochi., and Spector, Paul E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86 (2), pp. 278-321. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2958.

7] Colquitt, Jason A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (3), pp. 425–445.doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.386

8] Colquitt, Jason A., Conlon, Donald E., Wesson, Michael J., Porter, Christopher 0. L. H., and Yee Ng, K. (2001). Justice at The millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology86 (3),pp. 425–445.doi: 10.1037110021-9010.86.3.425

9] Cropanzano, Russell.,and Greenberg, Jerald. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Iindustrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 317-372). New York: Wiley.

10] Cropanzano, Russell., Bowen, David E.,and Gilliland, Stephen W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives November, pp. 34-48.

11] Elamin, Abdallah M., and Alomaim, Nasser. (2011). Does Organizational Justice Influence Job Satisfaction and Self-PerceivedPerformance in Saudi Arabia Work Environment?International Management Review 7 (1), pp. 38-49.

12] Erturk, Alper. (2007). Layoff survivors' perceptions of fairness as determinant of affective commitment following downsizing. Boğaziçi Journal21 (1-2), pp. 37-58.

13] Folger, R., and Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In K. Rowland and G. Ferris (Eds.). Research in personnel and human resources management 3, pp. 141-183. Greenwich. CT: JAI Press.


14] Goudarzvandchegini, Mehrdad.,Gilaninia, Shahram., and Abdesonboli, Rahim. (2011). Organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior case study: Rasht public hospitals. International Journal of Business Administration 2 (4), pp. 42-49. doi:10.5430/ijba.v2n4p42.

15] Greenberg, Jerald. (1990a). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management 16, 399-432.

16] Greenberg, Jerald. (1990b). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden costpay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology 75, pp. 561-568.

17] Greenberg, Jerald. (1993a). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human decision process 54, pp. 81-103.

18] Greenberg, Jerald. (1993b). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

19] Hassan, Arif. (2002). Organizational justice as a determinant of organizational commitment and intention to leave. Asian Academy of Management Journal 7 (2), pp. 55-66.

20] Kamalian, Amin Reza., Yaghoubi, Nour-Mohammad., and Moloudi, Jamshid. (2010). Survey of relationship between organizational justice and empowerment (A case study). European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences 26, pp. 165-171.

21] Kim, H. (2009). "Integrating organizational justice into the relationship management theory". Retrieved from [Online] Available: http://www.allacademic.com/ (Retrieved from 15th of May 2009).

22] Konovsky, Mary A., and Organ, Dennis W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants oforganizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 17, pp. 253-266.

23] Loi, Raymond., Hang-yue, Ngo.,and Foley, Sharon. (2006). Linking employees’ justice perceptions to organizational commitment and intention to leave: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 79, pp. 101–120. doi:10.1348/096317905X39657

24] Malik, Muhammad Ehsan., and Naeem, Basharat. (2011). Impact of perceived organizational justice on organizational commitment of faculty: Empirical evidence from Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business 1 (9), pp. 92- 98.

25] Moorman. Robert H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?Journal of Applied Psychology 76, pp. 845-855.

26] Najafi, Sajjad.,Noruzy, Ali., Azar,HeminKhezri.,Nazari-Shirkouhi, Sajad., andDalvand, Mohammad Reza. (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 5(13), pp. 5241-5248.

27] Niehoff, Brian P., and Moorman. Robert H., (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal 36 (3), pp. 527-556.

28] Organ, Dennis W., and Moorman, Robert H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship behavior: What are the connections? Social Justice Research 6 (1), pp. 5-18.

29] Rifai,HarifAmali. (2005).Test of the relationships among perceptions of justice, job satisfaction, affective commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. GadjahMada International Journal of Business May-August 7(2), pp. 131-154.

30] Schappe, Stephen P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of' Psychology 132 (3), pp. 277-290.


31] Shapiro, Debra. L., Buttner, E. Holly., and Barry, Bruce. (1994). Explanations: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 58 (3), 346-368.

32] Triana, Marı´a del Carmen., Wagstaff, Marı´aFernanda., Kim, Kwanghyun. (2012). That’s not fair! How personal value for diversity influences reactions to the perceived discriminatory treatment of minorities. Journal of Business Ethics.doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1202-0.

33] Whisenant, Warren.,and Smucker, Michael. (2009). Organizational justice and job satisfaction in coaching. Public Organization Review 9, pp. 157-167. doi: 10.1007/s11115-009-0077-8.

34] Zaman, Gohar., Ali, Nadar., and Ali, Nazim. (2010). Impact of organizational justice on employees outcomes. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences 3 (1), pp. 44-53.

Organizational Justice the Sound Investment in Organizations

Documents

Transcript of Organizational Justice the Sound Investment in Organizations