PhD Thesis - Pakistan Research Repository

PhD Thesis

ORGANIZATIONAL POWER AND POLITICS:

INVESTIGATING THE MEDIATING ROLE OF

ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ON WORK ATTITUDES

THESIS SUBMITTED TOWARDS THE PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SINDH, FOR THE AWARD OF DOCTOR

OF PHILOSOPHY (PhD) IN COMMERCE

NOOR UN NISSA BALOCH

Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration

University of Sindh, Jamshoro, Pakistan

2019

i

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the work present in this thesis entitled “ORGANIZATIONAL

POWER AND POLITICS: INVESTIGATING THE MEDIATING ROLE OF

ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ON WORK ATTITUDES” has been carried out by Noor

un Nissa D/o Ali Nawaz under our supervision. The work is genuine, original and,

in our opinion, suitable for submission to the University of Sindh for the award of

degree of PhD in Commerce.

SUPERVISOR

___________________________________________

Dr. Ashique Ali Jhatial

Professor

Institude of Commerce


CO-SUPERVISOR

___________________________________________

Dr. Jamshed Adil Halepoto

Professor

Institude of Commerce


ii

DEDICATION

To my supervisor, co supervisor, parents, son (Shahmeer) and my husband for

their continual love and support which helped me to achieve my vision. With

their efforts and prayers I achieved the honor of the highest state of learning.

Noor un Nissa

PhD Scholar

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All praises to Almighty Allah who bestowed upon me His blessings, which

enabled me to accomplish this task objectively and successfully.

I owe my deepest gratitude to my Supervisor, Dr. Prof Ashique Ali Jhatial for his

sincere mentorship. He bore demands in this connection with grace and generosity

throughout the completion of this doctoral dissertation.

I am grateful to my Co-Supervisor Dr. Jamshed Adil Halepota for his continuous

encouragement and moral support at all the stages of this doctoral program.

My special thanks go to all of my friends Afroz Bhand, Nazia Dharejo, Aqsa

Dharejo, Mariam Kalhoro and my class fellow Sir Azeem Bhatti, who helped me

in any form, especially in collection of data for this research. I am also thankful

to brother, Dr. Muhammad Nawaz Baloch for his help and support during my

entire research.

Last, but not least, my warm and heartfelt thanks to my Father Dr. Ali Nawaz

Shahani and My Mother Jannat, exceptionally inspirational in every stage of

educational struggle, as well as in my life.

I would also like to acknowledge to my better half Faizan Khoso, My Mother in

law Iffat Khoso and Father in law Shahnawaz Khoso for their everlasting love and

support which sustained me in the years, it took to bring this work to completion.

Special thanks to my sister Mehru Nissa and brother in law Fayaz Memon for

being there to listen when I suffered any problem at hostel and helped me during

my research period. Without the blessings and support of my whole family

including my all brothers this thesis would not have been possible.

Thank you for the strength you gave to me. I love you all!

iv

ABSTRACT

Involvement of employees in politics within organization is not a new occurrence.

Therefore, in history there are many events noted in which faculty and

administration have actively participated in demonstrations of strikes, marches

and media activities that were very frequently happenning in Universities of Sindh.

This study investigates perception of politics in universities of Sindh and its

negative effects on employees work related attitudes including job satisfaction, job

involvement, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior,

turnover intentions and work-related burnout. It explores the involvement of

university teaching faculty and administrative staff in politics growing the trend

of politicizing the educational systems and manipulation of education for political

interests. Moreover, it has been argued by many scholars that the presence of

organizational justice can reduce the occurrence of political games among

workers. Therefore, this study also examines the mediating role of organizational

justice to check whether the presence of organizational justice and its dimensions

can reduce the negative effects of politics or not. A survey has been conducted

through a well-structured questionnaire among 500 respondents as well as

teaching and administrative staff from different pubic universities of Sindh

Province.The study concluded that there is significant relationship between

perceptions of organizational politics and organizational justice. The main effects

of analysis have also revealed that perceptions of politics have significant

relationship with most of outcomes studied in this research. As for mediating

effects of OJ on outcomes relationship, the results have shown significant

mediating effects of organizational justice (OJ) with organizational politics (OP)

for all outcomes except one (work related burnout).

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE ......................................................................................................... I

DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... III

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... V

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... XI

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. XIII

ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................XIV

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................. XV

CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1

1.1.1 ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS .................................................................................. 1

1.1.2 ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS – OUTCOMES .............................................................. 4

1.1.3 MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ................................................... 5

1.2 RESEARCH GAP OF THIS STUDY ........................................................................ 6

1.3 THESIS/PROBLEM STATEMENT .......................................................................... 7

1.4 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY .................................................................................. 8

1.4.1 POLITICS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS PAKISTAN ..................................... 8

1.4.2 UNIVERSITIES OF SINDH PROVINCE ....................................................................... 8

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................... 10

1.6 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE .................................................................................... 11

1.7 RESEARCH HYPOTHESISES .............................................................................. 11

1.8 RESEARCH METHOD FOLLOWED IN THIS THESIS .............................................. 13

1.9 CONTRIBUTION OF THIS THESIS ...................................................................... 13

1.10 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ......................................................... 14

1.11 OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTERS ...................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................... 17

2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 17

2.2 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER - IMPLICIT THEORIES .............................................. 17

2.3 ROLE OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT AND POWER TACTICS............................. 18

2.4 ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS - GENERAL IDEA .................................................. 19

2.5 ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS-ORIGIN IN LITERATURE ....................................... 20

2.5.1 ARISTOTLE'S POLITICAL THEORY ......................................................................... 20

2.5.2 MACHIAVELLIAN POLITICS (1469-1527) ............................................................... 21

vi

2.5.3 KARL MARX (1818-1883) .................................................................................... 21

2.5.4 SAN TZU (544-496BC) ........................................................................................ 21

2.5.5 POLITICS IN 1900 ................................................................................................ 22

2.6 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER AND POLITICS- THE RELATIONSHIP......................... 22

2.7 POLITICAL USE OF POWER .............................................................................. 23

2.8 ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS- IMPLICATION AT WORKPLACE ............................ 25

2.9 DIMENSIONS OF PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS ........................ 26

2.9.1 GENERAL POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR ............................................................................. 27

2.9.1.1 NON-AVAILABILITY OF REGULATIONS ................................................................... 27

2.9.1.2 DECISION MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY .......................................................... 28

2.9.1.3 SCARCITY OF VALUED RESOURCES ................................................................... 28

2.9.2 GO ALONG TO GET AHEAD .................................................................................. 28

2.8.3 PAY AND PROMOTION POLICIES ................................................................... 29

2.10 ANTECEDENTS OF PERCEPTION OF POLITICS ................................................. 29

2.10. 1 ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES ......................................................................... 30

2.10.2 JOB/WORK ENVIRONMENT INFLUENCES .............................................................. 32

2.10.3 PERSONAL INFLUENCES ..................................................................................... 32

2.11 FACTORS OF PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS ........................... 34

2.11.1 SITUATIONAL FACTORS ..................................................................................... 34

2.11.2 PERSONAL FACTORS .......................................................................................... 35

2.12 ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE - AN OVERVIEW .................................................. 35

2.13 SIGNIFICANCE AT WORKPLACE ..................................................................... 37

2.14 ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE – LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................ 38

2.14.1 TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ......................................................... 38

2.14.1.1 DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE .................................................................................... 39

1.14.1.2 PROCEDURAL JUSTICE ..................................................................................... 40

2.14.1.3 INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE................................................................................. 42

2.14.1.4 THE TWO FACETS OF INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE: INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE AND

INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE ............................................................................................. 43

2.15 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE–OUTCOMES ................ 43

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 46

3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 46

3.2 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHIES ............................................................................... 46

3.2.1 ONTOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 46

3.2.1.1 ONTOLOGY IN BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH .................................... 47

3.2.2 INTERPRETIVISM AND POSITIVISM ........................................................................ 47

3.2.2.1 WHAT IS ONTOLOGY AND WHAT IS EPISTEMOLOGY ........................................... 47

3.3 TYPE OF RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 51

3.4 RESEARCH APPROACH .................................................................................... 51

vii

3.5 RESEARCH DESIGN ......................................................................................... 52

3.6 RESEARCH STRATEGY..................................................................................... 56

3.7 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT ................................................................................. 57

3.7.1 DEVELOPMENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT.................................................. 57

3.8 MEASUREMENT SCALES .................................................................................. 59

3.9 POPULATION .................................................................................................. 59

3.10 OPERATIONALIZATION OF SCALE .................................................................. 60

3.10.1 PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS ..................................................... 60

3.10.2 ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ................................................................................ 60

3.10.3 JOB INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................ 60

3.10.4 JOB SATISFACTION ............................................................................................ 61

3.10.5 JOB RELATED BURNOUT .................................................................................... 61

3.10.6 TURNOVER INTENSION ....................................................................................... 61

3.10.7 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT........................................................................ 61

3.10.8 ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR ....................................................... 62

CHAPTER 4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND DEVELOPMENT OF

HYPOTHESES ....................................................................................................... 63

4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 63

4.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK............................................................................. 63

4.3 PERCEPTIONS OF POLITICS AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE - OUTCOMES

RELATIONSHIPS ................................................................................................... 67

4.4 DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESE ....................................................................... 68

4.4.1 RELATIONSHIP OF PERCEPTIONS OF POLITICS AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ....... 69

4.4.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS – TURNOVER

INTENTION .................................................................................................................. 69

4.4.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTIONS OF POLITICS AND ORGANIZATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR ............................................................................................... 70

4.4.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTIONS OF POLITICS AND JOB-RELATED BURNOUT 71

4.4.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS AND JOB

SATISFACTION ............................................................................................................. 72

4.4.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS AND

COMMITMENT ......................................................................................................... 73

4.4.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS AND JOB

INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................................. 74

4.4.8 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND JOB SATISFACTION ........ 74

4.4.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT ............................................................................................................. 77

4.4.10 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTION OF POLITICS AND ORGANIZATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP BEHAIVOR ............................................................................................... 79

viii

4.4.11 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND INTENT TO TURNOVER .... 80

4.4.12 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND JOB-RELATED BURNOUT

.................................................................................................................................. 81

4.4.13 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND JOB INVOLVEMENT ...... 82

4.5 UNDERPINNING THEORY ................................................................................. 84

4.5.1 SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY ................................................................................ 84

CHAPTER 5 PILOT STUDY .................................................................................. 85

5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 85

5.2 PILOT STUDY ................................................................................................. 85

5.3 PROBLEMS OF PILOT STUDIES ......................................................................... 87

5.4 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ....................................................................... 88

5.4.1 RELIABILITY ....................................................................................................... 88

5.5 FULL-SCALE STUDY ....................................................................................... 91

5.6 TARGETED AREA AND SAMPLE IN PILOTING ................................................... 91

5.7 DATA ENTRY PLAN......................................................................................... 91

5.8 METHOD FOLLOWED IN PILOT STUDY ............................................................. 92

5.9 OUTCOME OF PILOT STUDY ............................................................................ 93

5.10 DETAILS OF PILOT STUDY............................................................................. 93

5.11 RELIABILITY STATISTICS DURING PILOT STUDY ............................................ 94

5.11.1 WHAT IS CRONBACH ALPHA .............................................................................. 94

5.11.2 CRONBACH’S ALPHA RELIABILITY OF PILOT STUDY ............................................ 95

5.12 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS .............................................................................. 96

5.12.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF PERCEPTION OF POLITICS (POP) .............................. 97

5.12.2DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE .............................................. 98

5.12.3DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE ............................................. 99

5.12.4DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE .......................................... 99

5.12.5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE ........................................ 99

5.12.6 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF TURNOVER INTENSION .......................................... 100

5.12.7DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR (OCB) ... 100

5.12.8DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF JOB INVOLVEMENT ................................................ 101

5.12.12 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF JOB SATISFACTION .............................................. 102

5.12. 13 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT ........................ 103

5.12.14 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF WORK RELATED BURNOUT .................................. 103

5.13 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION ............................................................................104

5.14 CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................105

CHAPTER 6 MAIN STUDY FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS .......................106

6.1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................106

6.2 RESEARCH ENGAGEMENT PLAN .....................................................................106

ix

6.3 NATURE OF STUDY DATA ANALYSIS ..............................................................107

6.4 DATA EXAMINATION AND SCREENING BEFORE THE ANALYSIS .......................107

6.4.1 MISSING DATA .................................................................................................. 107

6.4.2 OUTLIERS ......................................................................................................... 108

6.4.2.1 OUTLIER DETECTION METHODS ...................................................................... 108

6.5NORMALITY ...................................................................................................110

6.6 LINEARITY ....................................................................................................111

6.7 HOMOSCEDASTICITY .....................................................................................112

6.8 SAMPLE SIZE AND POWER ANALYSIS .............................................................113

6.8.1 DATA SAMPLE .................................................................................................. 115

6.9 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................116

6.9.1 GENDER OF RESPONDENT .................................................................................. 116

6.9.2 MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENT ..................................................................... 117

6.9.3 AGE OF RESPONDENT ........................................................................................ 118

6.9.4 EDUCATION OF RESPONDENT ............................................................................. 119

6.9.5 EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENT ............................................................................ 120

6.9.6 OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENT ........................................................................... 121

6.10 RELIABILITY ...............................................................................................122

6.10. 1 OVERALL RELIABILITY OF FINAL DATA ........................................................... 123

6.10. 2 RELIABILITY OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CONSTRUCT ......................................... 123

6.10.3 RELIABILITY OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE CONSTRUCT ......................................... 124

6.10.4 RELIABILITY OF INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE CONSTRUCT ...................................... 124

6.10.5 RELIABILITY OF INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE CONSTRUCT ..................................... 124

6.10.6 RELIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR CONSTRUCT ............ 124

6.10.7 RELIABILITY OF PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS CONSTRUCT ......... 124

6.10.8 RELIABILITY OF JOB INVOLVEMENT CONSTRUCT ............................................... 124

6.10. 9 RELIABILITY OF TURNOVER INTENTION CONSTRUCT ........................................ 125

6.10. 10 RELIABILITY OF JOB SATISFACTION CONSTRUCT ............................................ 125

6.10.11 RELIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT CONSTRUCT ........................ 125

6.10.12 RELIABILITY OF WORK RELATED BURNOUT CONSTRUCT ................................. 125

6.11 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS .............................................................................125

6.11.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING PROCEDURAL JUSTICE .............. 125

6.11.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE ............. 126

6.11.3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE.......... 127

6.11.4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE ......... 127

6.11.5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS ..... 128

6.11.7 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP

BEHAVIOR ................................................................................................................ 128

6.11.8DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING WORK RELATED BURNOUT ......... 129

x

6.11.9DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

................................................................................................................................ 130

6.11.10DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING TURNOVER INTENTION ............ 131

6.11.11 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING JOB INVOLVEMENT ................ 131

6.11.12 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING JOB SATISFACTION ................. 132

6.12 ITEM ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................133

6.12.1 PROCEDURAL JUSTICE ..................................................................................... 133

6.12.2 DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE .................................................................................... 134

6.12.3 INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE ................................................................................. 134

6.13.4 INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE ................................................................................. 135

6.13.5 ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS ............................................................................. 136

6.13.6ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR ........................................................ 137

6.13.7ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT ...................................................................... 138

6.13.8JOB INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 138

6.13.9JOBSATISFACTION ............................................................................................ 139

6.13.9 WORK RELATED BURNOUT .............................................................................. 140

6.13.10TURNOVER INTENTION .................................................................................... 141

6.14 PHASE OF DATA EXPLORATION ....................................................................141

6.15 COMMUNALITY SCORES OF DATA ................................................................145

6.16 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING ..........................................................149

6.17 THE MEASUREMENT MODEL ANALYSIS ........................................................149

6.18 ITEM RELIABILITY APPRAISAL .....................................................................150

6.19 CONSTRUCT RELIABILITY MEASUREMENT ....................................................153

6.20 OPERATIONALIZATION OF MEDIATION ..........................................................155

6.20 PATH COEFFICIENT AND T-VALUE ...............................................................160

6.20.1 THE OVERALL VIEW OF FINDINGS DIRECT RELATIONSHIP OF INDEPENDENT (OP)

AND DEPENDENT (JI, JS, OC, OCB, TI AND WRB) VARIABLES ....................................... 160

6.20.2 THE OVERALL VIEW OF FINDINGS AFTER MEDIATING OF OJ THE RELATIONSHIP OF

INDEPENDENT (OP) AND DEPENDENT (JI, JI, OC, OCB, TI AND WRB) VARIABLES .......... 162

6.21 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ...............................................................................164

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION ................................................................................166

7.1 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................166

7.2 THEORITICAL CONTRIBUTION ........................................................................168

7.3 PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTION ...........................................................................169

7.3 FUTURE DIRECTIONS ................................................................................170

7.4 LIMITATIONS PERTAIN IN THIS STUDY ...........................................................171

REFRENCES .........................................................................................................173

xi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: PUBLIC SECTOR UNIVERSITIES IN SINDH .................................................................... 9

TABLE 2: REVIEW OF TWO PHILOSOPHICAL PARADIGMS ............................................................ 49

TABLE 3: STRUCTURE OF QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT........................................................... 57

TABLE 4: DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS OF PILOTING ................................................................... 93

TABLE 5: CRONBACH’S ALPHA ............................................................................................... 95

TABLE 6: CRONBACH’S ALPHA OF CONSTRUCTS IN PILOTING .................................................. 96

TABLE 7: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF PERCEPTION OF POLITICS (POP) .................................... 97

TABLE 8: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE ................................................... 98

TABLE 9: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE .................................................. 99

TABLE 10: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE ............................................. 99

TABLE 11: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE .......................................... 100

TABLE12:DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF TURNOVER INTENSION ................................................ 100

TABLE 13: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF JOB INVOLVEMENT ................................................... 101

TABLE 14: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF JOB SATISFACTION .................................................... 102

TABLE 15: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT ............................... 103

TABLE 16: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF WORK RELATED BURNOUT ........................................ 104

TABLE 17: THE MAHALANOBIS DISTANCE METHOD ................................................................ 110

TABLE 18: PEARSON’S CORRELATION TEST ............................................................................ 112

TABLE 19: LEVENE’S TEST .................................................................................................... 113

TABLE 20: GENDER STATUS ................................................................................................. 116

TABLE 21: MARITAL STATUS ............................................................................................... 117

TABLE 22: AGE GROUP ........................................................................................................ 118

TABLE 23: EDUCATION STATUS ............................................................................................ 119

TABLE 24:EXPERIENCE STATUS ............................................................................................ 120

TABLE 25: OCCUPATION STATUS .......................................................................................... 122

TABLE 26: CRONBACH’S ALPHA SCORE OF ALL CONSTRUCTS ................................................ 123

TABLE 27: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING PROCEDURAL JUSTICE ................... 126

TABLE 28: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE .................. 126

TABLE 29: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE ............. 127

TABLE 30: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE ............. 127

TABLE 31: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS .......... 128

TABLE32:DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP

BEHAVIOR .................................................................................................................. 129

TABLE 33: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING WORK RELATED BURNOUT .......... 130

TABLE 34: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT ... 131

TABLE 35: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING TURNOVER INTENTION .................. 131

TABLE 36: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING JOB INVOLVEMENT ........................ 132

TABLE 37: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING JOB SATISFACTION ........................ 132

xii

TABLE 38: THE ITEM ANALYSIS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE ...................................................... 134

TABLE 39: THE ITEM ANALYSIS OF DISTRIBUTION JUSTICE ..................................................... 134

TABLE 40: THE ITEM ANALYSIS OF INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE ................................................. 135

TABLE 41: THE ITEM ANALYSIS OF INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE ................................................. 135

TABLE 42: THE ITEM ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS ............................................. 136

TABLE 43: THE ITEM ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR ....................... 137

TABLE 44: THE ITEM ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT ..................................... 138

TABLE 45: THE ITEM ANALYSIS OF JOB INVOLVEMENT .......................................................... 139

TABLE 46: THE ITEM ANALYSIS OF JOB SATISFACTION .......................................................... 140

TABLE 47: THE ITEM ANALYSIS OF WORK RELATED BURNOUT .............................................. 140

TABLE 48: THE ITEM ANALYSIS OF TURNOVER INTENTION .................................................... 141

TABLE 49: KAISER-MEYER-OKLIN MEASURE OF SAMPLING ADEQUACY .................................. 142

TABLE 50: ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX ........................................................................... 142

TABLE 51: COMMUNALITY SCORE ........................................................................................ 146

TABLE 52: ITEM LOADING .................................................................................................... 151

TABLE 53: AVE AND R SQUARE VALUE .......................................................................... 154

TABLE 54: CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY ........................................................ 155

TABLE 55: PATH COEFFICIENTS AND T-VALUES .................................................................... 160

TABLE 56: DIRECT EFFECTS PATH COEFFICIENTS AND T-VALUES .......................................... 161

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: DIMENSIONS OF PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS ................................. 27

FIGURE 2: ANTECEDENTS OF PERCEPTION OF POLITICS............................................................ 30

FIGURE 3: FACTORS OF PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS ...................................... 34

FIGURE 4: TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ...................................................................... 38

FIGURE 5: RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................ 51

FIGURE 6: RESEARCH PROCESS ............................................................................................... 55

FIGURE 7: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................... 66

FIGURE 8: TYPES OF RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ................................................................... 88

FIGURE 9: GENDER STATUS .................................................................................................. 117

FIGURE 10: MARITAL STATUS .............................................................................................. 118

FIGURE 11: AGE GROUP ....................................................................................................... 119

FIGURE 12: EDUCATION STATUS ........................................................................................... 120

FIGURE 13: EXPERIENCE STATUS .......................................................................................... 121

FIGURE 14: OCCUPATION STATUS ......................................................................................... 122

xiv

ABBREVIATIONS

POP Perception of Organizational Politics

OJ Organizational Justice

OCB Organizational Citizenship Behavior

OC Organizational Commitment

JS Job Satisfaction

JI Job Involvement

TI Turnover Intention

WRB Work Related Burnout

PLS Partial Least Square

Sig. Significant

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

α Cronbach’s alpha

AVE Average Variance Extracted

SEM Structural Equation Modeling

xv

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A........................................................................................................................ 211

APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................................ 216

APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................................ 221

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter the brief introduction of independent variable that is organizational

politics, role of mediator (organizations justice) and their relationship with

outcomes have been discussed. Also, a brief discussion about context of the study,

scope, research objectives, research gap and methodology followed in this study,

plus contribution of this thesis, hypotheses proposed, and overview of all chapters

is also given.

1.1.1 ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

Till 1970s the phenomenon of organizational politics though important but took a

small chunk in the literature. As mentioned by Ullah et al., (2011) that studies

indicate that organizational politics should be investigated more deeply in order

to understand it more clearly in organizations. However, there are two dimensions

of political behavior, either positive or negative. Generally, politics occur where

there is no transparency of rules and regulations or where there is scarcity of

resources Ferris & Gilmore, (1995). According Ferris et al., (1989) “organizational

politics is a subjective perception, but not necessarily an objective reality”.

Therefore, it is said by Robb, (2011) POP is all about perception of individual.

Usually employees feel unpleasant environment at workplace if they judge their

organization unjust and unfair, this can be happened due to presence of politics

and lack of justice at organization.

According to Ferris et al., (1989) the model in which they proposed that notion of

organizational politics have negative relationship with the employee job related

outcomes. Accordingly, Kacmar and Ferris (1991) defined POP as “the extent to

which individuals view their working environment as political in nature,

2

promoting self-interests of others and thereby unfair and unjust from the individual

point of view.”

As stated by Vigoda (2002) there is dual conception of organizational politics in

literature but the negative effects are more prominent. The negative influences are

harmful includes feeling of hatred, revenge, lust of power, possession of resources,

low performance, low level of satisfaction and also decreased level of

organizational commitment (Kacmar & Baron, 1999). As said by Dubrin (2001)

organizational politics is as an unsanctioned means for getting power. Similarly,

it could be consider like attaining power without merit. The main objective to

involve in politics is to attain power rather to fight for common interest. Usually

employees engage in politics to accomplish their own interest like getting

resources, promotions and no doubt power.

Beside other organizational politics, the institutional politics is very sensitive

concept. In institutions political person always busy to achieve his/her own

interests, so they usually bypass their authority, always proceed through improper

channel and ignore authorities and get early promotion due to having strong

support of political parties.

In this study, the politics in higher education institutions has been researched. And

more particularly how to decrease all these negative influences of organizational

politics by presence of organizational justice has been investigated.

However, Kacmar and Baron, (1999) defined “Organizational politics is certain

and have potential to effects on various critical processes including performance

evaluation, resource allocation, and managerial decision making that can affect

organizational effectiveness and efficiency”.

On other side it is mentioned by Fedor et al., (2008) that employees may involve

some political movements which are approved by organization and these also

provide benefit to work unions and whole organization. As said by Treadway et

al., (2004) that people who are engage in good politics can increases their

resources with the help of strong social network. Beside positive side there are

also many negative aspects of presence of politics at work place. According to

Ferris, Russ, and Fandt, (1989) employees may involve in various illegitimate

3

political activities that are particularly considered to assist, defend, or promote

self-interests not for sake of benefit to their organization or co-workers that are

including making unions to pressurize authorities, decisions based on favoritism

for pay and promotion, and also cause backstabbing.

Consequently, Mintzberg, (1983) stressed that taking these aspects the

organizational politics considered as a dysfunctional for workplace. Individual

benefits can subject be answered through politics and due to the presence of

competition it. Individual usually use political maneuvers to get through

competition. Albeit tool (Politics) which creates competition and for this clarity

and justice should prevail in organization and further the promulgation of justice

legislation and rules are made in organization. These rules are made in the

organization. These rules eventually help out the individuals to get benefits from

politics. But the prior studies exposed that with the process of fairness in the arena

of organizational competition, the employee feel relaxed and stressed environment

is reduced which is ultimately increase the output of work through job satisfaction

of the employees, decrease job related stress, upgrade the trust in organization,

and also boast up the level of organizational commitment.

Moreover, it can be reason of absentisum from work and effects work performance

and effects output of worker who get dissatisfy in the organization due to unfair

environment and which ultimately make them unsecure to work in the organization

at large. As per contra the prior researches show that organizational behavior is

aligned with organization targets. Therefore, it is observed that organizational

justice is also influences the turnover and job satisfaction.

Many scholars concluded that perceptions of organizational justice have positive

effect on employees work related outcomes. Also, various researchers stressed on

linkage between organizational politics and organizational justice. It is also

demonstrated by many scholars that when perceptions of organizational justice

increase then relation between organizational politics and other negative work-

related outcomes becomes weak. The objective of this study is to examine that

how perception of organizational justice of employees can affect perceived

organizational politics and another work-related outcome.

4

1.1.2 ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS – OUTCOMES

In this study both positive and negative outcomes of organizational politics has been

measured, including job satisfaction, job involvement, job related burnout,

organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, turnover

intensions. Also measure these all outcomes after having mediation role of

Organizational Justice. However, there are four outcomes proposed in original Ferris

et.al. in 1989 including anxiety/stress, job involvement and organizational

withdrawal.

Ferris et al., (1989) advised that these outcomes may result of at the least 3 possible

reactions perceptions of politics like: (i) organizational withdrawal like absenteeism

and turnover, (ii) stay a member of the organization however do now not get involved

in politics and (iii) remain a member and to be involved in the politics.

Thus, the individuals who observe politics at their workplace and do not want to get

along with politics and they also have other options, like they can resign from

organization. Individuals who don’t want to leave the organization because of some

reasons or different attractive benefits of the organization they might not decide to leave

the organization. But, as a result it brings out the chances of frequent absenteeism.

Secondly, whilst the employees perceived organizational politics negatively, then they

do their work because either they do not think about the results of politics or simply pay

no attention to their presence. The third response might be to involve in politics at the

same time as staying inside the organization which can have an impact on both job

anxiety/stress and job satisfaction.

As concluded by many studies including Cropanzano et al. (1997) and Ferris et al (1996)

that employee perceptions of organizational politics can generate number of negative

outcomes at workplace within organizations such as withdrawal of OCB, low task

performance, decrease level of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. So far,

it is said by Kacmar et al., (1999) for researcher’s antecedents and outcomes of

organizational politics are remained lacking.

According to the Miller, Rutherford, and Kolodinsky (2008), Vigoda-Gadot and Talmud

(2010) the organizational politics used only for self-interest that can affect

organizational outcomes negatively which ultimately result decrease in productivity and

organizational profits. This argument early supported by Cropanzano et al., (1997) the

5

organizational politics leads to negative work environment that evenly effect production.

Likewise, it was stated by Vigoda-Gadot and Talmud (2010) that if employee perceives

his/her work place as political that negatively affect job related outcomes. on whole, as

stressed by Malik, Danish, and Ghafoor, (2009) in the presence of organizational politics

the employees judge their work place insure due to lack of control which impact

negatively on perception of organizational trust.

However the existence of organizational politics can be reason of numerous negative

influences that after a while can cause to be organization dysfunctional results with many

negative outcomes some can be mentioned and discussed here but overall list is very

exhausted, few are including Favoritism as mentioned by Malik, et al., (2009), lack of

organizational citizenship behaviors like backstabbing among coworker listed by Chang,

et al., (2009) low level of job satisfaction and high job stress stated by Miller, et al.,

(2008), lack of organizational commitment and poor job performance listed by Witt,

Andrews, and Kacmar (2000) and increase in rate of employee turnover discussed by

Randall, et al., (1999).

1.1.3 MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

The research on organizational justice has been flourishing in recent years. The

pioneer of study on organizational justice was Adams in the year of 1963, 1965.

In early 1990 extensive literature on this subject were published.

Generally, in organization the organizational justice described as role of fairness

and its relationship with work related outcome. According to Moorman (1991)

when employees treated fairly at workplace then it effects positively to other work

outcomes.

For this study the research proposed that the dimensions of organizational justice

have a negative relationship with the perception of organizational politics.

Likewise, other studies like by Andrews and Kacmar (2001) concluded that

procedural justice is more significantly related to organizational politics because

procedures represent the outcomes (pay) and also reflects the perception of control

within organizational environment.

6

Some studies also suggested that the perception of interactional justice can

reverse the negative impacts of organizational politics, by maintaining positive

relationship with the supervisor. However other findings by Cohen-Charash and

Spector (2001) expressed that the perception of interactional justice reflects the

negative relationship with turnover intentions of employees.

The researchers Tyler and Lind (1992), Byrne (2005) in their study given a model

named as “The Rational model of authority” that model recommended the process

which describes that how organizational justice can lessen the negative influences

of politics. Furthermore, this model also anticipated that having justice at

workplace a good working environment will be established and a positive

relationship among coworker will develop.

It has been observed in literature that when employees judge their workplace

politically charged then they suffer from increased level of anxiety, stress and poor

health condition. Similarly, the long-term investment will also suffer from

political environment within organization because it becomes unpredictable due

to political conditions. Ultimately the intent to leave organization will develop and

shows less devoted towards work which effects productivity and leads towards

loss of organization at large.

Concisely in the presence of the factor of perceived organizational justice can give

safeguard to employees at work place against the political dominance and also

against those behaviors which are politically charged. It is also proposed that the

negative feelings about politics will also decreased by enhancing fair procedures

and measure at workplace (Byrne, 2005).

Therefore, the purpose of this research is to broaden the literature of justice and

politics through empirical testing the hypothesis, that the fairness will lessen the

negative effects of perceived politics on work related outcomes.

1.2 RESEARCH GAP OF THIS STUDY

A considerable part of the prior researches on organizational politics and

organizational justice has been carried out particularly in the U.S that research was

mainly on the individualistic western cultures hence this study is conducted in

7

Pakistan, a collectivist culture. This study also aims to cover the gap in two

substantial areas of organizational behavior including Perceptions of Politics and

dimensions of organizational justice on organizational outcomes like job

involvement, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational

citizenship behavior, job related burnout and Intent to Turnover, it also

investigates the direct effects of the Justice dimensions and Perceptions of Politics

on these outcomes.

In researcher’s best knowledge no research study has been conducted to

investigate the mediating role of perceived organizational justice between

perceived organizational politics and organizational outcomes in context of higher

education institutions of Sindh Pakistan.

However organizational politics is very effective concept, but it has taken

attention in recent literature. However, study like Ullah et al., 2011 suggest that

organizational politics need to be investaged further.

1.3 THESIS/PROBLEM STATEMENT

Involvement of employees in politics within organization is not a new occurrence.

Therefore, in history there are many events noted in which faculty and

administration have actively participated in demonstrations of strikes, marches

and media activities that were very frequently happenning in universities of sindh.

Although issues were very serious and genuine, so Involvement of employees in

politics sometimes plays a vital role for getting certain rights as well as exposing

corruption. However, employees can be exploited for the interest of certain

political parties where political conflicts emerge to disrupt the educational process

and divert it from its clear purpose and also those who are not interested or

participate in Politics are interrupt and suffer a lot. Many scholars have discussed

about the growing phenomenon of politicizing the educational systems. Zargar

(2012) argued that politicization of education is basically the manipulation of

education for political interests. Politicians and their follower are unable to

recognize that the crisis in universities and other educational institutions are trying

to manipulate academics. Some experts support the idea of politicizing employees

specially faculty. However, the other group of experts stands against the

8

politicization of education. Therefore, they think that teachers should not take part

in politics. To them the university is a haven of learning primarily and hence

nothing should deter them from this goal.

1.4 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

1.4.1 POLITICS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS PAKISTAN

Existence of politics in universities is not new. Unfortunately, the political

influence has been rapidly increasing in the universities. Undoubtedly, the

participation of Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s) in politics is good, however

increasing the political dominance creates a potentially negative impact. Higher

Education Institutions(HEI’s) staff are engaged with various Political group which

are so influential in matters such as promotion, power, access on valued resources,

rewards, nomination of candidates for appointments, in the allocation of funds for

research and the award of scholarships.

In few universities of Sindh there are also some political groups and associations

which work significantly but at times they are wicked. Existence of political

groups in universities nurture favoritism among staff leads to counterproductive

work behaviors which is inappropriate and threatening for the university. When

politics dominates in university, the education becomes meaningless and loses its

real value. It then becomes oriented towards serving certain section of the society

and not for the welfare of the whole society. Politicization of university made

campuses as battlegrounds of rival political parties and supporters. “In most of the

colleges and universities, Party politics has practically destroyed the peaceful

atmosphere that is essential for education pursuits” (Pylee cited in Das 2008:101).

1.4.2 UNIVERSITIES OF SINDH PROVINCE

In Sindh a large number of public and private sector universities are established.

Famous and well ranked universities including University of Karachi, Mehran

University of information and technology and liaquat medical University etc. are

found in Sindh. Karachi which is the largest populated city of Pakistan, so the

large number of universities and education institutions are found and interference

9

political parties and involvement of staff and faculty in politics is also not hidden

phenomena. Therefore, this study aims to choose universities of Sindh to

investigate politics and its impact on employees work related attitudes.

Hence for this study data has been collected from public sector universities of

Sindh province. Due to time limitation, it was humanly not possible to cover all

universities though majority of the universities were approached and here you can

find a list of universities recognized by Higher Education Commission of Pakistan

in Sindh and their response rate are given below:

Table 1: Public Sector Universities in Sindh

No Public Sector Universities in Sindh Respond

Rate

1. Benazir Bhutto Shaheed University Lyari, Karachi 65%

2. DOW University of Health Sciences, Karachi 20%

3. Institute of Business Administration, Karachi 20%

4. Liaquat University of Medical and Health

Sciences,Jamshoro

80%

5. Mehran University of Engineering & Technology,

Jamshoro

50%

6. NED University of Engineering & Technology,

Karachi

70%

7. Peoples University of Medical and Health Sciences for

Women, Nawabshah

80%

8. Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Sciences &

Technology, Nawabshah

40%

9. Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University Shaheed

Benazirabad

75%

10. Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam 50%

10

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

In universities majority of employees involve in politics to gain personal interests

and built personal relationships, even also the political interference of parties is

mostly the criteria to appoint heads of universities, deans of faculties, heads of

departments and administrative and teaching stuff. Aleryani (2007) argued that the

heads of universities deal all levels according to the level and degree of loya lty

and favoritism. The purpose of all these is to preserve their party’s monopoly of

power and create forvertism in order to give benefit to selected group. Therefore

due to having existence of politics employees who perceive their work

environment as political those tend to more involve in counterproductive work

behaviors which is not good for the universities.

This study investigates the practice of politics in Public sector universities of

Sindh Province and its effects employee’s work-related attitudes. It also explores

that how Organizational Justice mediates or reduces negative influences of

Organizational Politics that negatively affects work related behavior of

university’s teaching faculty as well as administrative staffs. A survey has been

carried out by a well-structured questionnaire among 500 respondents including

teaching and administrative staff which have been selected from different public

sector universities of Sindh Province. The study reveals that in what extent

organizational power and politics negatively influence their employees and their

attitudes towards their work which ultimately affects education of students in

universities. Researcher also tried to give some suggestions from finding that

concluded from data that how to reduce the political interference in university’s

education and help university to create conducive educational environment away

from politics by adding up one factor and that is organizational justice.

11. Sindh Madresatul Islam University, Karachi 60%

12. University of Karachi, Karachi 60%

13. University of Sindh, Jamshoro 70%

11

1.6 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

After Realizing the importance to explore the presence of politics and its effect on

employee job attitude, the purpose of this study to develop a conceptual frame

work which explains that how employees in public sector universities in Sindh,

Pakistan are engaged in institutional politics, which ultimately negatively effects

their positive work outcomes and also how the factor organizational justice and

change these negative influences in to positive.

Therefore, this research study seeks to explore the antecedents of organizational

politics, mediating role of organizational Justice and direct and indirect effect of

these on employee work attributes. This thesis aims to underline the following

major research objectives.

1 To examine the direct relationship between perceptions of organizational

politics and organizational justice.

2 To assess the mediating role of organizational justice on workplace

outcomes.

3 To investigates the direct effects of the organizational justice dimensions

and perceptions of organizational politics on work related outcomes

including job involvement, job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

organizational citizenship behavior, job related burnout and intent to

turnover in higher education institutions of sindh.

1.7 RESEARCH HYPOTHESISES

As it is discussed earlier that perception of organizational politics and organizational

justice are two different constructs so their effect with all outcome variables including

job satisfaction, job involvement, job related burnout, organizational citizenship

behavior, organizational commitment, and turnover intensions is also different. so

keeping in view this perspective, the following hypotheses were proposed for this study

Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of organizational politics is negatively related to

Organizational Justice.

12

Hypothesis 2: Perceptions of Organizational Politics is positively related to

Turnover Intention.

Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of Organizational Politics is positively related to Job

Related Burnout.

Hypothesis 4: Perceptions of Organizational Politics is negatively related to Job

Satisfaction.

Hypothesis 5: Perceptions of Organizational Politics is negatively related to

Organizational Commitment.

Hypothesis 6: Perceptions of Organizational politics is negatively related to

Organizational Citizenship Behavior.


Involvement.

Hypothesis 8: Organizational Justice mediates the effect of Organizational

Politics on Job Satisfaction.


Politics on Organizational Commitment.


Politics on Job Involvement


Politics on Turnover Intentions.


Politics on Organizational Citizenship Behavior.


Politics on Job Related Burnout.

13

1.8 RESEARCH METHOD FOLLOWED IN THIS THESIS

• This research is Quantitative and Explanatory. It contributes some

literature to the body of knowledge of two imperative fields of

organizational behavior, including 1) organizational power and politics and

2) organizational justice.

• The data has been collected from the relevant targeted population and used

quantitative analysis techniques to test causal relationships between all

variables and to test the hypotheses.

• Data has been collected through questionnaires. Respondent were faculty

members and also administrations of public sector universities of Sindh.

• The sampling technique in this study was snowball sampling. The SPSS

22.0 is used as statistical Software for analysis of data.

• For confirmatory analysis the Structural Equation modeling (SEM) the

Partial Least Square Method used in software SmartPLS.

1.9 CONTRIBUTION OF THIS THESIS

1: First, this research provides a comprehensive, quantitative review of the

relationships between perceived organizational politics, organizational justice

dimensions and its outcomes.

2: Perceptions of organizational politics have been investigated as a direct

predictor number of work-related outcomes, but less attention has been given to

examined to investigating perceptions of Justice as mediator of organizational

politics and their relationships with outcomes.

3: In spite of having four dimensions of organizational justice, majority of the

researchers have not examined all four types of justice concurrently. in depth

understanding of organizational justice and relationships with its outcomes need a

simultaneous examination of all four dimensions of organizational just ice

including distributive, procedural, informational and interactional. therefore, in

14

this study all four dimensions of organizational justice and its relationship with

outcomes have been investigated.

4: The most of previous research has been conducted in West mainly in the U.S

which has individualist cultures, thus, this study has been conducted in collectivist

cultures of the East, Country Pakistan.

5: Most of the studies on justice–outcomes conducted on employees of business

organizations like Lowe et al., 1995; McFarlin et al. 1992 and Lam et al, 2002.

however this study has been conducted in higher education institutions.

6: This research studied direct relationships of power and perception of politics;

dimensions of organizational justice and with some outcomes including job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior OCB and

intent to turnover. Furthermore, this study also concerns with justice as a mediator of

perception of politics POP and their relationships with its outcome. Primarily there are

two factors which motivated for studying these outcomes for this research. First, these

outcomes which are taken in study have consistently been explored in the context of

industrial psychology and organizational behavior because these are crucial for effective

organizational functions. Second, it has been given an opportunity to investigate the

separate as well collective effects of perceptions of politics and, organizational justice

and other important outcomes in single study.

1.10 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study in the best knowledge of researcher is the first empirical study

especially in Sindh Province mainly higher education (Public) sectors to

examining perceptions of politics - outcomes relationships with mediating effects

of organizational justice.

In this study male respondent were in majority than female. However, the past

research suggests that reactions to politics and justice are moderate by gender, so

future research should consider representation of equal gender or having more

female employees, this might result different findings.

15

In this academic study cross-sectional data has been used though a longitudinal

study can be conducted that may result different to analyze under these variables

with respected outcomes.

Future research should be carried out in different context with different variables

as this study was carried out in public sector universities so there should also a

comparative research on private and public sector universities. In future the

research can be applied in different sectors with other variables.

In this study only, public sector universities of sindh Province are taken as sample

area. For Future research it is recommended to include other provinces also.

1.11 OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTERS

This thesis consists on seven chapters. The summary of each chapter is given

below:

CHAPTER ONE

In this chapter there is detailed introduction of historical background of two areas

including organizational politics and organizational justice, context of study, brief

detail about politics in higher education institutions Pakistan, list of universities

in sindh province from which data were collected, contribution of this Study,

research gap, objectives of the study, research broblems, context and scope of the

study, Research Hypothesis and Limitations and overview of whole study.

CHAPTER TWO

This chapter highlights the extensive literature review of organizational power and

politics including different dimensions, theories, factors, antecedents and its origin

in different eras, and also literature of organizational justice with its dimensions.

And also explore the relationship of both e.g. organizational power and politics

and organizational justice.

CHAPTER THREE

16

This Chapter based on conceptual framework and its theoretical explanation in

broader aspects. And also, development of hypothesis with extensive supportive

literature to generate relationship with each variable to establish a causal

relationship of each hypothesis.

CHAPTER FOUR

Represents research methodology. Outline includes a brief introduction of

research philosophies, explanation of research design used for this study, research

approach, and identification of population, procedure of sampling,

operationalization of questionnaire and ethical consideration.

CHAPTER FIVE

Provide information about the process of pilot study. A brief introduction has

been given about reliability and validity of questionnaire instrument.

Representation of results through tables which used to analyze the reliability and

validity of questionnaire which has been done in SPSS software.

CHAPTER SIX

This chapter is all about final analysis results of this study including demographic

information of participants, descriptive statistics of each variable, and use of SEM,

hypothesis testing and conclusion and discussion of findings of study.

CHAPTER SEVEN

This Chapter provides through information of this research study and also provide

information about research implication, limitations of this study and directions for

future research.

17

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter the extensive literature review of organizational power and politics

including its different dimensions, theories, factors, antecedents and its origin in

different eras and also literature of organizational justice with its dimensions have

been discussed. This chapter also highlights the relationship its outcomes

including job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment,

organizational citizenship behavior, turnover intension and work-related burnout.

2.2 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER - IMPLICIT THEORIES

This construct has vast abstract of nature. There are number of dimensions of power

therefore it is hard to interpret which one is more significant in process of organizational

decision-making.

Power is the ability to get work done or ability of taking decision. Therefore, power is

critically important for decision making in organizations and as well as in society.

Deutsch, (1973) argued the defined assumption of power is that the relation of power

among people are inherently competitive; A concern for more power and the less power

is available for B.

Mary, Parker and Follett, (1920s) has written about organizational life, and discussed

variety of aspects of power. Follett, (1973) anticipated that even though power was

usually visualized as power over others like the power of A over B. She proposed that

power like this build up from both ways including coactive and non-coercive power.

Follett (1924) penned, “Our task is not to learn where to place power; it is how to develop

power .Coercive power is the curse of the universe; co-active power, the enrichment and

advancement of every human soul”. The different researches about power at work place

define important aspects of power and its workplace outcome. The other theory consider

power as a factor that can be produced by support of workers within organization.

18

Consequently, managers may have different capabilities and may differ in their concepts

and ideas about organizational power therefore these differences may influence their

decisions of power share. The other basic aspect of relationships recognized by Wish et

al., (1976), that is power distribution. According to Organ and Bateman, (1991) the

beliefs and ideas of people about equality and inequality like in what extend power is

distributed within organization for distribution of power between employee and

management, men and women, minorities and a majority have been recognized as a

significant component of their perception of organizational power. Other empirical

findings by Campbell et al, (1970) suggesting that “power relations tend to be joint,

reciprocal, mutual, and ongoing, rather than one sided, unilateral or independent” and

according to Galbraith, (1967) power is often broadly distributed throughout the middle

level of management in organizations, mostly people including Organ and Bateman,

(1991) believe that power lies generally at the top of the hierarchy in organizations and

that power is of a one-way (like top–down) in nature. Therefore, managers also may

vary in perception by which they consider that power is equally distributed, and the

degree to which they ideally prefer that power equally to be distributed in organizations.

2.3 ROLE OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT AND POWER TACTICS

In several definitions of organizational politics including Bacharach and Lawler, (1998)

exclusively focused on usage of power which affects the decision-making process in

organizations and also individual behavior that is generally self-serving.

According to various researchers including Kipnis et al., (1980) the organizational

politics can also be explored by influencing tactics of employees, although other

researchers have stressed on these tactics within organizations like French & Raven,

1959; Izraeli, 1975; Schein, 1977; Dubrin, 1978 and 1988.

The scholar Kipnis et al., (1980) expressed organizational politics as the ways by which

individuals try to manipulate their coworkers, subordinates and supervisors in order to

attain their own benefits or controversy to fulfill organizational goals.

According to the prior literature including Kipnis et al., 1980; Erez & Rim, 1982; Erez,

Rim and Keider, 1986;Yukl and Tracey, 1992 there are nine different power tactics

have been identified. Those influence tactics including “Legitimacy”, “Rational

19

persuasion”, “Inspirational appeals”, “Consultation”, “Exchange”, “Personal appeals”,

“Ingratiation”, “Pressure” and “Coalitions”.

Impression management is also considering as a view of organizational politics as said

by Ferris et al., (1989), which has newly gained the extensive attention of researchers

in organizational behavior as stated by Bolino and Turnley (2003). The researchers

including Schlenker, 1980; Gardner and Martinko, 1988, Leary and Kowalski, 1990

define that Impression management is refer to the process in which individuals attempt

to manipulate the ideas and views. Moreover, several researchers like Bozeman and

Kacmar,1997; Bolino and Turnley, 2003 has been identified most popular techniques

or Behaviors of impression management including “Conformity”, “Excuses”,

“Apologies”, “Self-Promotion”, “Flattery”, “Favors”, “Association”.

2.4 ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS - GENERAL IDEA

The number of the organizational researchers have discovered and explored the political

environment of the organization. The pioneer of research on politics including

Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Mayes & Allen, 1977; Pfeffer

,1978, 1981; Tushman, 1977 and other scholars like Mowday, 1978 and Madison et al.,

1980 have tried to make cure for negligence of power and politics within organization.

In recent years an extensive literature has been found about organizational politics and

its relationship with organizational Justice and other workplace attitudes. Theoretical

evidences in past recommend that politics often a hinder for regular organizational

processes including “decision making”, “promotion”, “production”, “rewards” and

“damages productivity and performance” of the individual as well as for organization as

whole.

There are two definitions of organizational politics which are widely used. One

definition defines politics as a process of influence that is exercised in organizational

settings. We can say politics is absolutely general set of social behavior. It is very wide

and effective social view. Possibly as a result of this broad view, this definition allows

that politics can be very beneficial and productive or very harmful and counterproductive

factor depending on the particular circumstances.

However, according to Ferris, Russ and Fandt, 1989 the general concept of politics

defines politics “narrowly”. The more specifically politics define as “the term politics is

20

limited to behavior which is strategically designed to attain short-term or long-term self-

interest”.

Gandz and Murray, 1980 and Kacmar & Ferris, 1991 have given some good examples

of political behavior. Like a political manager might use the performance evaluation

system in order to provide self-promotion or showing favoritism to a personal friend or

relative. In this view number of scholars including Ferris et al., 1991; Gilmore et al.,

1993; Ferris & Judge, 1991; Gandz and Murray, 1980q states generally politics seen as

counterproductive factor within organization. The both general and specific approaches

are useful.

2.5 ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS-ORIGIN IN LITERATURE

The word politics derived from the Greek word “Politika” (affairs of cities), which

passed down to the English in the 15th century as “polettiques” which in short become

politics in the Middle English. But the simple definition of politics relates as the

activities that relate to influence the action and policy of government or to keep power

in government.

2.5.1 ARISTOTLE'S POLITICAL THEORY

Generally, Aristotle is considered as one of the most leading philosopher in different

fields, and also in political theory. During the time between BCE 323-335 he worked for

some of major areas, including the Politics. As from Greek methodology Aristotle (384-

322 BC) describes that politics also provide an investigation of the components of

community that exits in time which live in accordance with virtue and politics.

He was famous about his work on “Politics,” he has given theory about the rule of law.

At that time, he introduced six types of constitutions which use by the city-states of

Greece depends on people whom involved in ruling and their center of interest.

Aristotle pair of these six kinds of social structure in three including

Monarchy or a tyranny means a state having only one ruler mean one head of state.

Second is aristocracy or an oligarchy which means a state having many rulers and third

was polity or a democracy in which all rule their state with common concern.

21

2.5.2 MACHIAVELLIAN POLITICS (1469-1527)

There are many political aspects, Micaville being a realistic political philosopher; he

believed that the sole responsibility of the wellbeing of the state totally lies on the king.

He argues that the essence of the most political life is conspiracy. Keeping politics in

mind, he gave dual morality principle. In which he suggested that the anarchy is

observed in the international system but as per contra domestic system hierarchy should

be made by the king, Machiavelli being a realist, puts in his book “The Prince” in the

action all men, specially princes (rulers) where there is no recourse, to justice, the end is

all that counts. He strongly emphasized that a prince never lacks legitimate reasons to

break his promises.

Machiavellianism refers to "the degree to which an individual is pragmatic, maintains

emotional distance and believes that ends can justify means" Robbins et al., (2008).

The term given this named after the Niccolo Machiavelli wrote his famous "The Prince"

in the 16th century in which he described different methods by which individual can

manipulate other. Then this term was referring to deceit and treachery Christie (1970).

Valle, (1995) defined that the "Machiavellian Personality" is that type of personality who

has ability to control others for the sake of his/her own interest. Many studies including

Farmar et al., 1993; Grams and Rogers, 1990; Christie Geis, 1970; Turner and

Martinez, 1977 investigated that the Machiavellians persons are cunning manipulator

and typically use more influential means to get their work done.

2.5.3 KARL MARX (1818-1883)

He was a philosopher and revolutionary socialist of German. He became interested in

the philosophical ideas of the Young-Hegelians. Marx theories were wrapped up in

economics and social conditions.

2.5.4 SAN TZU (544-496BC)

San Tzu was a military general and technician, his subject was military strategy san tzu’s

work has been précised and employed throughout East Asia. China has long been proud

of San Tzu. In his book “Art of War” he embodies the philosophy of war for managing

conflicts and winning battles.

22

2.5.5 POLITICS IN 1900

The existing literature on organizational politics shows that that existence of

organizational politics found in early 1960’s. Burns, (1961) suggested that politics occur

when “others (individuals) are made use of as resources in competitive situations".

Likewise, organizational politics labeled in content of books like in book of

organizational behavior by Robbins et al., (1983).

According to Cropanzano et al., (1997) politics is a tool which is used to get self-interest.

This finding also supported by other researchers including Madison et al., 1980; Gray

and Ariss, 1985 and Ferris et al., 1989. As stated by Kacmar & Baron (1999)

Organizational politics have been defined as "actions by individuals are directed toward

the goal of furthering their own self-interests without regard for the well-being of others

or their organization"

Extensive literature has revealed that a perception of politics is host of negative work-

related outcomes like concluded by Ferris & Judge, (1991) and Kacmar & Baron (1999).

2.6 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER AND POLITICS- THE RELATIONSHIP

The concept of power is not newly introduced we can found its evidences in 1950s when

Dahl (1957) mentioned that power is the capability to overcome resistance in attaining

an anticipated outcome. Rahim, (1989) proposed that “power is the ability of one party

to change or control the behavior, attitudes, opinions, objectives, needs, and values of

another party”.

For the organizational scholars including Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Kanter, 1979;

Kotter, 1985 and 1983; Pfeffer, 1981; Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977 the origin of power in

organizations have center of concern from long time. Number of researcher are keen to

identifying the individual and organizational elements of power attainment and

innovative outcomes as mentioned by Aiken, Bacharach, and French, 1980; Daft, 1978;

Damanpour, 1988; Downs and Mohr, 1976; Kanter, 1983, 1988; Kimberly, 1981. Now

organizational scholars have added new literature by exploring in the domain

organizational politics. Pioneers of recent work which includes Mayes & Allen (1977),

Tushman, 1977; Pfeffer, 1978, 1981; Bacharach and Lawler, 1980; Gand and Murray,

1980 have tried to make remedy against the problem of ignorance of power and politics.

A hypothetical framework that had gained much consideration in studies of social power

23

was first introduced by French and Raven (1959). The five types of social power were

identified, which were (coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, and referent) that have been

focused in plentiful organizational studies.

1. “Coercive power” describes the perceptions of subordinates they perceive if they

will not gets along with boss then he has power to punish him/her like dismiss

him/her or any other.

2. “Reward power” is the perception of subordinates, they perceive that a boss has

legitimate right or power to give them reward if they obey him or do as they

desire.

3. “Legitimate power” describes on the perception of subordinates, they perceive a

boss have legal right to control their behavior and have right to prescribe them

their desired behavior.

4. “Expert power” is based on perception of subordinates, the perceive that a boss

they are inferior because they are layman in this field as their boss has more

experience regarding this job and having special knowledge or expertise in

particular field.

5. “Referent power” is about the desire of subordinates that he/she could be

recognized by their boss so that he/she can receive more favoritism, admiration

from reference of his/her boss.

For the management theory and practice Power is basic factor. According to Dahl, 1957;

Zald, 1970; Zalesnik, 1970 the few perceptions are crucial to the study of organizations,

and organizational life has the universal and key existence known as power. The basic

aim of this study is to develop a framework by which we can differentiate the ethical

parameters to power at workplace. For this this purpose , it is important to first discuss

what are possible uses of political power and then interprete the prior studies to know

the general prinples then analyze the literature of normative principles, so we can

establish a ethical framework that can be implement in political need of power in

organizations.

2.7 POLITICAL USE OF POWER

In contemporary era the capability to organize resources, strength, and knowledge on

the basis of favoritism is the picture of power in organization Tushman, (1977). Thus,

Drake, 1979 and Pfeffer, 1977 stated that power is present to lie only when there are

24

clashes over “means or ends”. More basically, this prospect of power is established on

two fundamental hypotheses:

1.According to Thompson, (1967) and Hickson, et al., (1971) “Organizations are

composed of individuals and groups that have conflicts over resources, strengths,

knowledge, and effects”

2. According Pfeffer and Salancik (1974), Allen et al., (1979) “Individuals and

groups come together to preserve their interests through means that are self-effacing

when compared to existing controls, norms, and sanctions”.

These concepts have attracted various researchers to find out distinguish between

political use of power and (nonpolitical) use of power in organization Gandz & Murray,

(1980). Political use of power is, when individuals and groups don’t want to oblige

regulatory authority and want to design new rules for self interest. Even the in all

organizations have their official systems that are mainly established to control the use of

power, the individual use political power to influence their co worker at work place

Schein, (1977).

To understand the structure of organizations, we first have to consider them as political

systems. The political view of organization helps us to understand power relationships

in usual organizational Operation and Functions. If we believe that power associations

or relationships exist in organizations, and then we have to accept that politics is an

essential part of organizational life.

As our study concerned, Vigoda, (2002) conducted a study to promote understanding

the reactions of employees towards organizational politics. Their study examined a

relationship between perception of organizational politics, job attitudes, and some other

work outcomes in Israel. Gibson, (2006) tested that, the political culture and subculture

of an academic organization emerged as an essential attribute of female faculty’s

mentoring reports. Danish, (2002) states organizational Politics is an essential aspect of

organizational life and relates to power, authority and influence. Political behavior and

the use of power affect almost every important decision in organizations. Drory &

Gadot, (2010) provided a critical examination of the denotation of organizational politics

for human resource management. Yen & Chen, (2009) studied and elaborated the

“perceptions of organizational politics workplace friendship correlations and

25

investigated the effect of organizational level on perceptions of organizational politics

and workplace friendship with organizational level as an interfering variable”.

The political behavior is consisting of two dimensions; politics can have positive or

negative influence. As Ferris and Gilmore, (1995) said that usually politics exist at those

organizations where the rules and regulations are not clearly defined for existing

behavior and process of decision making are also not clear. Politics may also generate

where there is scarcity of resources. According to Andrews and Kacmar, (2001) the

nature of perception of politics either it is positive or negative usually depends upon the

perception of perceiver about existing of politics within organization.

So, this research study may also stay side by side with prior literature and will also focus

on the perception of political behavior Byrne, (2005) and these all perceptions which

influence the employees and also organization in a negative way Gandz & Murray,

(1980). Mainly this study will examine that how to minimize all these negative

influences of organizational politics by means of organizational justice.

2.8 ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS- IMPLICATION AT WORKPLACE

It is well said by various researchers including Ferris and King, 1991; Mintzberg, 1983;

Pfeffer, 1992; Zhou and Ferris, 1995 that in every organization the internal politics is

certain. According to Drory, (1993) organizational politics is naturally exist i n human

and inherently occurs in organizations. Stated by Koberg, (1985) the competency is not

more important than organizational politics. It was declared that organizations are

political entities in which process of making of decisions and setting goals usually

depend on bargaining processes March, (1962). It has been argued by Ferris et al., (1996)

that “organizational politics is simply a fact of life”. Those, who ignore this factor within

organization they must do that at their own risk. As said by Molm, (1997) truly it is not

possible to have an organization which is politics free, because in organization people

work together and share resources, where there is lack of resources, conflicts arise, and

people adopt different tactics to get resources. Yet, very limited studies mainly including

Cropanzano, 1997; Mayes and Allen, 1977; Kipnis, Schmidtan and Wilkinson, 1980

have expressed the characteristics and boundaries of politics.

Mayes and Allen, (1977) have proposed that practicing managers play a crucial role in

management within organization, so they should learn more about the practices of

26

politics. Poon, (2003) suggested that because of its significance at workplace; t h e

organizational politics should be investigated more expansively. The knowledge which

is available in literature can help managers to cope with problems which frequently

occur due to politics within organization. Different conceptual models have also been

identified by Vrenden bergh and Maurer, 1984; Ferris et al., 1989; Bhatnagar, 1992;

Ferris et al., 2002 in order to clarify the process of politics within organizations.

However last 25 years of studies which were conducted by several researchers exposed

that there are two main approaches of organizational politics. The first approach refers to

the political behavior of individual that he/she show by their actions and tactics within

organizations. The prior research regarding this field stressed that there are different

typologies of influence tactics used by individuals within organization identified by

Brass, 1984; Burns,1961; Cheng,1983; Erez & Rim, 1 9 8 2 ; Izraeli, 1975, 1 9 87 . The

second approach is more advanced that focus on intentions and perceptions rather than

their actions. Perceptions of organizational politics have got more concentration from

past two decades especially after theoretical model which was introduced by Ferris et

al., 1998. In this research that second approach was investigated.

2.9 DIMENSIONS OF PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

Number of researchers tried to develop reliable scale for measurement of perceptions of

organizational politics. Initially Ferris and Kacmar (1989) designed 5-items un-

dimensional scale. After that Kacmar and Ferris (1991) developed a 40-item scale

having five dimensions including “Coworkers”, “Pay and Promotion”, “Go Along to

Get Ahead”, “General Political Behavior” and “Self-Serving Behavior”.

Then they again introduced a multi-dimensionality scale having 12 items to measure the

perceptions of organizational politics under three dimensions including “General

Political Behavior”, “Going Along to Get Ahead” and “Pay and Promotion policies”.

Then again Kacmar & Carlson, (1997) redesigned that 12-items scale in to 15-item scale.

Although, that 15- item scale also examine the same factor as 12-item which was

successively used in many studies including Hochwarter et al., (2000) and Vigoda,

(2000). These three dimensions of POPS scale are concisely discussed below.

27

Figure 1: Dimensions Of Perceptions Of Organizational Politics

2.9.1 GENERAL POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR

This includes the person’s actions for self- serving to get benefits. As mentioned by

various researchers including Tushman, 1977; Madison et al., 1980; Drory and Room,

1990; Fandt and Ferris, 1990; Ferris and King, 1991; Kacmar and Ferris, 1993 that such

conduct develops when no rules and regulation are available or aren't really defined to

govern actions, while decisions are taken underneath un-reality and while there's

shortage of the valued assets.

2.9.1.1 NON-AVAILABILITY OF REGULATIONS

According to Kacmar and Carlson, (1997) that when rules are imposed on others and

there is no clear regulations, policies and rules are be made in order to guide the people

regarding perfect conduct then under such situation, individuals normally generate their

own rules that serve their personal self-interests and give advantage only to thumb

maker.

General Political Behavior

Non availability of rules

Decision making under uncertainty

Scarcity of valued resource

Go Along To Get Ahead

Pay and Promotion Policie

28

2.9.1.2 DECISION MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY

The studies like Drory and Room, (1990) have suggested that after decisions are made

beneath uncertainty, the ones may perceive those decisions as political. As stated by

Cropanzano et al., (1995) that it is perceived that if the required information is not clearly

available to decision maker regarding decision then he/she must use his/her analysis to

make decision. Due to this that decision is not considered much effective and there is

likelihood that those individuals who are not directly involved in decision making

process can perceive that decisions to be political. Similarly, the Miles, (1980) said that

political behavior reveal decision making process as non-rational.

2.9.1.3 SCARCITY OF VALUED RESOURCES

Molm, (1997) said that businesses are social entities where employees always engage to

get valued resources due to this reason they usually involve in conflicts and use many

influential strategies to attain profits and personal desires. As said by Drory & Room,

(1990) therefore directly or indirectly these things push them to participate in political

activities.

So, it is clear that where there is shortage of assets or resources people engage in politics

and spread political environment in organization. However, it was recommending by

Drory, (1993) that “decision making, and actions are determined via process of conflict,

power struggles and compromise making”. It was said by Tushman, (1977) Therefore with

uncertainty organizational politics will become complex.

2.9.2 GO ALONG TO GET AHEAD

According to Kacmar and Carlson, (1997) "go along to get ahead” is employee’s

behavior that described as no action like become silent to acquire valued sources.

As supported by many researchers includes Tushman, 1977; Gandz and Murray, 1980;

Porter et al., 1981; Mintzberg, 1985; Drory and Room, 1988, 1990; Frost, 1987 that in

organizational research, politics and conflict are interlinked. Political behavior is

perceived as self-serving, it is like threaten other’s interest and in results it creates

conflict as pointed by Porter et al. (1981).

However, it is suggested by Vrendenberg and Maurer, (1984) that organizational politics

generate when employees engage in conflicts. But, there is also some type of political

29

behavior in which people who remain silent but remain active politically and adopt

tactics for getting self-interest by using final silent and inactiveness. Correspondingly,

According to Kacmar and Carlson, (1997) that "lack of action, or going along to get

ahead, can be a reasonable and profitable approach to take in order to advance one's own

self-interests when working in a political environment".

2.8.3 PAY AND PROMOTION POLICIES

Pay and promotion policies define as to what extend organizations behave politically by

implementation of policy and decision-making process. According to Ferris et al., 1989;

Ferris & king, 1991; Kacmar and Ferris, 1993 that the degree on which organization’s

reward-based merit. Usually, the pay and promotion policies are all about the process of

performance evaluation in organizations.

Numerous studies by Riley, 1983; Longenecker Sims and Gioia, 1987; Markham,

Harlan and Hackett, 1987; Ferris Russ and Fandt, 1989; Dyke, 1990; Ferris and Buckley,

1990 concluded that that performance evaluation and promotion process frequently

engage in politics. Therefore, according to Ferris and King, (1991) the process of

performance evaluation and decision making can be influence by employees through

political behaviors. Even though the employees also use the impression management

tactics for example self-praise, flattery, nepotisms, etc. As observed by Ferris and King,

(1991) that usually to those personnel’s who show flattery behavior, do favors, offer

additional help and take interest in private affairs of their bosses those employees receive

higher rates regarding performance.

2.10 ANTECEDENTS OF PERCEPTION OF POLITICS

There are three fundamental categories of antecedents that are including

organizational influences, job/work environment influences and personal influences.

These categories are discussed below:

30

Figure 2: Antecedents Of Perception Of Politics

2.10. 1 ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES

Organizational influences include four organizational level that are “Centralization”,

“formalization”, “hierarchical level” and “span of control”.

According to Hage and Aiken, (1967); Dewar, Whetten and Boje, (1980) the

centralization means distribution of power in organizations. Distribution of power can

be defined the amount of power given to employees to make decisions in overall the

organization. So, it was stated b Kacmar et al, (1999) when power is divided among top

level of the organization, then centralization will be high. As said by Ferris et al., (1989)

that an organization that have high degree of centralization within organization then

there will be greater amount of power and control of top management in which results

the perceptions of politics at the lower levels will increase.

As define by Allen et al., (1979) "Centralization of power and control increases the

likelihood of that individuals with little legitimate power will use other influential

strategies". Furthermore researches e.g. Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, (1988); Welsh and

Slusher, (1986) have discovered a proof of political conduct in organizations will

increase with the increase in centralization within organization. According to Mintzberg,

(1979) "professional bureaucracies are more political than other types of organizations"

and said by Farrel and Peterson, (1982) that theoretically and empirically the concept of

power and organizational politics is linked together.

Organizational influences

1.Centralization

2.formalization

3.hierarchical level

4.span of control

job/work

environment influences

1. Job autonomy

2. Skill variety

3. Feed-back

4. advancement opportunities

5. interactions with others (Coworkers & Supervisors)

personal influences

personal factors including age, sex,

Machiavellianism and self-monitoring

31

The POP model elaborates that centralization is positively connected to perceptions of

politics which has been supported by several studies including Ferris et al., 1996; Fedor

et al., 1998, 1999; Valle and Perrewe, 2000. Though, Parker et al., (1995) found a

negative association.

Formalization states as the degree to which commands, regulations, tactics and

communications are to be made within organization as stated by Pugh et al., (1968). As

for politics, Mintzberg, (1979) expressed that formalized companies have very weak

political movements. Similarly, it has been advised by March, (1962), Cyert & March,

(1963) that when all non-routine decisions made in the absence of formal policy then

these decisions are perceived as political in nature.

Hierarchical level states that a person's position in the organizational chain of command.

As said by Madison et al., 1980; Ferris et al., 1989 that employees perceive that politics

diffuses at top levels in the organizations.

Madison et al., (1980) daigonsed that mostly politics is generally found at top level

management while Gands and Murray, (1980) said that more politics is actually found

among low level employees. Additionally, Ferris and Kacmar, (1992) and Ferris et al.,

(1996) exposed that there is a positive bond between hierarchical levels and POP

however Parker et al., (1995) and Valle & Perrewe, (2000) have showed there is not any

linkage between them.

According to Valle, (1995) “the span of control explains the number of employees who

report to one boss or the number of employees who work under a manager in efficient

and effective manner” (Robbins and Coulter, 'Management', 7th edition). According to

Ferris et al., (1989) there is possibility span of control can be relate to perceptions of

politics that can aslo increase span of control which lead to uncertainty and ambiguity.

The large span of control can also harmfully affect the effective and efficient

management of the employees, and also built an environment of ambiguity and

uncertainty which will consequently increase the level of politics within organization.

Though, Ferris & Kacmar, (1992) and Valle & Perrewe, (2000) expressed no significant

relationship between POP and span of control.

32

2.10.2 JOB/WORK ENVIRONMENT INFLUENCES

It has five elements including “Job autonomy”, “Skill variety”, “Feed-back”,

“Advancement Opportunities” and “Interactions” with others like each other at

workplace.

As said by Hackman & Oldham, (1980) that employee’s uncertainty about their workplace

can be reduced by “job variety”, “job autonomy” and “feedback”. So, perception of

politics is anticipated to be getting decrease because of increasing in these factors. Ferris

and Kacmar, (1992) stated a negative correlation between “job autonomy”, “skill

variety” and “perceptions of politics” while there is no significant relationship was

exposed by Valle & Perrewe, (2000) among “job autonomy”, “skill variety” and

“perceptions of organizational politics”.

Fedor, (1991) suggested that “political influence is generally accepted as an important

component in process of feedback”. Kacmar et al.,(1999) stated that when sufficient

feedback is not provided to convey guideline for behavior then an individual could build

up guidelines by their own that are favorable for them. These actions are considered as

political and tend to increase perceptions of politics of employees at workplace. The

model of Ferris et al., (1989) revealed that feedback is negatively interlinked with

perceptions of politics, the finding were consisting with the studies by Ferris and

Kacmar, (1992) and Kacmar et al., (1999) whereas Valle & Perrewe, (2000) resulted that

there is no significant relationship between them.

It was mentioned by Draft, (1992) that politics is usually increased due to resource

scarcity. Bhatnagar, (1992) also supported the same.

2.10.3 PERSONAL INFLUENCES

In model of Ferris et al., (1989) the last category is personal factors which including

“Age”, “Sex”, “Machiavellianism” and “Self-monitoring”.

Even though the model of Ferris et al., (1989) model showed that age has relationship

with pop but literature did not found any evidence regarding this factor as notify by

himself in study Ferris et al.,(1996). Likewise, many studies concluded that there is no

imprical relationship of age and POP exist between them like Ferris & Kacmar, (1992);

Parker et al., (1995) and Valle & Perrewe, (2000). Therefore, the researcher of

organizational researches like Ferris et al., (2002); Stepanski, Kershaw & Arkakelian,

33

(2000) recommended to regard age as a possible mediator of POP and its relationships

with outcomes in future for better understanding of this relationship. Accordingly,

Witt, Treadway and Ferris, (2004) also concluded in that way the age moderates the

bond between perceptions of politics and organizational commitment.

From many years the Gender differences has been tested in organizational research and

keep developing rapidly said by Maccoby & Jackline, 1974; Ferris & Mitchell, 1987.

Drory and Beaty, (1991) supported that gender should be examined as a factor which

significantly impacts on employee’s workplace attitude regarding organizational

politics.

Gands and Murray, 1980 proposed that lower level staff perceive more politics within

organization. Drory, 1993 also supported that lower level staff are not capable to get

benefited from politics. Furthermore, according to Ragins and Sundstrom, 1989 mostly

females are appointed at lower managerial levels and also earn fewer amounts than

males within organization. Ferris and Judge, 1991 also proposed that usually females

are working at low power positions in most of organizations. Thus, it is quite logical that

we can conclude from above literature that females perceive more politics at their

workplace than males. Prior research by Drory and Beaty, (1991) also investigated

organizational politics from the perspective of gender differences having main focus on

use of power. Research concluded difference in gender like men and women have results

different usage of power.

White and Rowberry, (1977) stated that women use their power clearly however the

Smith and Greneir in 1982 concluded that women have not clear knowledge of

organizational power. Furthermore, Brenner and Vinake, (1979) observed that women

are to a lesser authoritarian that of men. Bartol, (1974) revealed that women get no

dominancy attitude within organization. Several studies including Johnson, (1976);

Wiley and Eskilson, (1982) also concluded that mostly men are expected to use

influence `tactics and more directly than women. Ferris, (1996) suggest a negative

relationship between gender and pop within organization.

Although, numerous studies resulted that the opposite results from above studies, they

found that men perceive their workplace more political than women e.g Ferris et al.,

(1996). Further, Drory and Beaty, (1991) stated that however politics is part of

organizations, and males are more likely to involve in this organizational politics. There

34

are few studies like Fedor et al., 1998; Ferris and Kacmar, 1992; Parker et al., 1995)and

Valle and Perrewe, 2000 also found in which gender don not considered as a significant

interpreter of politics perceptions.

Several researches including Vleeming, (1979) have centered to examine associations

among mach personalities and several behavioral results. As an example, Biberman,

(1985) located Machiavellianism to be undoubtedly associated with a degree of

perceived workplace politics. Valle and Perrewe, (2000) also discovered an

advantageous association among Machiavellianism and perceptions of politics.

According to Synder, (1987); Gangestad and Synder, (2000) the self-monitoring defines

as a man or woman's capability to change his or her behavior to the elements of exterior

situations. Synder, (1974, 1987) also termed as “the capacity to reveal and manage one's

expressive behavior”.

2.11 FACTORS OF PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

Figure 3: Factors Of Perceptions Of Organizational Politics

The researches like Bhatnagar, (1992) and Ferris et al., (1989) proposed that there are

different factors which affect the politics perceptions. Generally, the proposed

backgrounds of organizational politics are divided in two categories:

2.11.1 SITUATIONAL FACTORS

At workplace, there are situational factors including “job variety” and “job autonomy”

and at organizational level there are other situational factors including “centralization”

and “formalization”. As mentioned by O' Connor & Morrison, (2001) that these are

Factors of Perception of Organizational Politics

Situational factors Personal factors

35

factors that are empirically supported including “organizational climate”, “advancement

opportunities” mentioned by Parker et al., (1995), “feedback”, “job autonomy” and

“skill variety” indicated by Ferris & Kacmar, (1992) and “centralization”,

“formalization” and “hierarchical level” as pointed by Ferris et al., (1996).

2.11.2 PERSONAL FACTORS

The personal factors related to characteristics that describe personality like

demography, values, attitudes and needs. As stated by O' Connor and Morrison, (2001)

the personal factors twhich have been empirical sustainability including personality

characteristics like “Machiavellianism” and “locus of control” and also Ferris et al.,

(1996) stated that demographic variables like gender and age.

similarly, the past research concluded that POP has significant relationship between

psychological states including burnout as specified by Cropanzano et al., (1997) and job

stress, withdrawal and negligent behaviors like neglect identified by Ferris et al., (1996)

and Kacmar, (1999), and turnover intentions, employee attitudes including

organizational commitment , job satisfaction, organizational performance, employee

performance, self-reported performance and organizational citizenship behaviors,

identified by kacmar et al., 1999; Vigoda, 2000; Vigoda, 2000 respectively.

2.12 ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE - AN OVERVIEW

Organizational justice is concerned with employee’s perception of fairness at workplace.

Existence of equity and fairness in organization affect employees in number of the ways,

which produce evidence that administration of that institution is trust worthy and have

moral and ethical standard. However, the origin of justice organizational is developed

from Adam’s equity Adams Theory, (1963, 1965) that study has goes under the progress

over time. Greenberg (1990b) stated organizational justice as the phenomenon which

attempts to express the function fairness in the organization. According to

Deutsch,(1985) the research of Adam is stressing on fairness of pay and outcomes of

individual at workplace.

In other words, the “equity theory” highlighted the perceptions of fairness regarding

outcomes, like distributive fairness. Equity theory is generally based on social

comparison Werner & Ones, (2000). Traditionally by various researchers including

Clemmer, 1993; Blodgett et al., 1997; Tax and et al., 1998; Smith and et al., 1999; Smith

36

and Bolton, 2002 justice was divided in three dimensions including distributive justice

(distribution of outcome), procedural justice (process of decisions making), and

interactional justice (treatment during procedures). But Greenberg, (1993) suggested

that three factor model of justice that is traditionally conceptualized that can be better

conceptualized as four factor models of justice. It is argued that interactional justice is

divided into two individual types of justice including “interpersonal justice” and

“informational justice”.

Interpersonal justice is referred as the fairness of interpersonal response by a person who

is performing procedures during distribution of outcomes and informational justice is

fairness about explanations and information. Cropanzano and Folger, (1991) introduced

a “two-factor model” of justice that includes distributive and procedural types of justice.

Distributive justice is defined as the person’s perceptions about the outcomes that they

receive are fair and equal. As according to various authors including Folger &

Greenberg, 1985; Greenberg, 1987; Lind and Tyler, 1988 the procedural justice is an

individual’s perception that the procedures performed within organization are fair. As

stated by Tyler, (1986) the prior studies on justice has showed that a subordinate accept

decision if procedural justice is followed, no matter outcomes are upto to his/her desire

or not. Moorman, (1991) explained that distributive, procedural, and interactional

justices are interlinked with each other, but having distinct dimensions of organizational

justice. Scandura, (1999) following this concept of organizational justice said that

organizational justice is defined as “distributive”, “procedural”, and “interactional”

justice.(Scandura, 1999).

Various scholars including Folger (1987, 1993), Greenberg (1990b) and also Sheppard,

Lewicki, and Minton, (1992) have suggested that “if employees perceive their

organizational decisions and managerial actions unfair or unjust, they may experience

feelings of anger, annoying and dis likeness”.

For instance, “in a survey conducted on 5,000 employees of three business sectors

including retail, manufacturing, and hospitals and result demonstrated that when

employees start to sense that they are demoralized by the organization, they start to work

against that organization like theft, protest etc”. DeMore, Fisher, and Baron (1988)

stressed that vandalism is type of inequity reduction that start with perception of

unfairness by authorities. It is also concluded in many studies that if employees feel

injustice they start to give punishment the organization. According to Jermier, Knights,

37

and Nord 1994 before direct involve in retaliation like theft or sabotage, employees may

involve in more hidden counter attack “retaliation”, like withdrawal of citizenship

behaviors, psychological withdrawal, and resistance behaviors. Therefore, Folger &

Baron (1996) argued that organization should not take concentration on violent events

that might be only the "tip of the iceberg".

2.13 SIGNIFICANCE AT WORKPLACE

The importance of organizational justice is exposed by the increasing research e.g.

Folger and Cropanzano (1998) , Colquitt et al., (2001) regarding concepts of fairness at

workplace. It is said by Konovsky (2000) the benefits of treating employees fairly have

been exposed by various studies which are conducted in different contexts (e.g., layoffs,

drug testing and pay cuts). It resulted from many research including Folger and

Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1990a, 1993a; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt

et al., 2001, Masterson et al., 2000, Moorman (1991) that perceptions of fairness or

justice linked with important workplace attitudes and behaviors including OCB,

turnover intentions, organizational commitment, satisfaction and performance. While

deep attention has been paid towards perceptions of organizational justice at late 1980’s

and the 1990’s, however distributive justice and procedural justice have received center

of attention by numerous researchers. These both types of justice have studied in

different contexts such as in drug testing (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991), employee

selection, recruitment (Gilliland 1993, 1994; Smither 1993), perceptions of leadership

(Tyler & Caine, 1981), performance appraisal (Greenberg 1986), and promotion

(Greenberg, 1988).Furthermore, most recently it has been exposed by Konovsky, 2000;

Cohen-Charash et al., 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001 that the perceptions of fairness are

positively and significantly associated to many work outcomes including organizational

support, trust in management, organizational citizenship behaviors, work performance

and organizational commitment.

In contrast, number of studies has been conducted regarding reactions to injustice which

may include anger and feelings of betrayal within employee in organization (Bies, 2001).

Because of unfair treatment in organization, employees are anticipated to engage in

negative work place attitudes like counterproductive work behaviors (may damage

the property, sabotage avoid work or spread rumors) and have intentions of turnover

noted by Colquitt et al., 2001. The sufficient literature by DeMore, Fisher, and Baron,

38

1988; Greenberg and Scott, 1996; Homans, 1961; Hulin, 1991; Jermier Knights and

Nord, 1994 expressed that organizational injustice generate dissatisfaction of

employees in the face of theft, vandalism and sabotage, and other negative workplace

attitudes like extraction of OCB, psychological withdrawal and conflict behavior.

2.14 ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE – LITERATURE REVIEW

Organizational justice refers to the only “ethical treatment” of employees in

organizational settings (Cropanzano, 1993). According to Greenberg, (1990b)

organizational justice is a term which is commonly used in the field of organizational

research which refer to the just and fair treatment with employees at workplace.

Though, in daily life, righteousness is a word which is used by the means of justice.

2.14.1 TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

Figure 4: Types Of Organizational Justice

The distributive and procedural justice is widely used classification to explain

organizational justice as by Cropanzano and Folger, (1991).The distributive justice

Types of Organizational Justice

Distributive Justice

Procedural Justice

Interactional Justice

Informational Justice

39

means equality in outcome and in reward distribution systems as mentioned by Adams,

1965; Deutsch, 1975; Homans, 1961; Leventhal, 1976 and the procedural justice is all

about fair procedures pointed by Leventhal, 1980; Leventhal etal., 1980; Thibaut and

Walker, 1975. lastly, the interactional justice stated by Bies and Moag, (1986). It is

assumed that procedural justice is combined with “Human Resource” practices in

organization.

So these three types are related to dimensions of justice construct which are concisely

discussed below:

2.14.1.1 DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

According to the Lambert, (2003) and Sezen, (2001) the term distributional justice is

referring to the fair distribution of procurements among Employees in organization.

distribution of equal acquisitions which are including duties, goods, services,

opportunities, punishments, awards, roles, statutes, wages, promotions, etc.

However, these shared things could have financial value, they could also have social

positions, working roles or opportunities (Irak, 2004). In late 1975, organizational justice

research has only one type of distributive justice only. Because it was basically based on

equity theory of Adams of 1965, that explain the equality in distribution of outcomes

they receive. Deutsch mentioned in 1985 the primary focus of Adams work was on

perception of traditional regarding the equality of outcomes like pay or performance

appraisal.

When individuals perceive in equity at workplace they start to modify their efforts or

change their perceptions regarding inputs or outcomes. In order to evaluate fairness

Adams used t h e frame-work of social exchange theory. Adams (1965) expressed the

employees is generally concerned about the fairness of outcomes rather than absolute

level of their outcomes.

Adam suggested that for determining the fairness in organization, they must calculate

the ratio of their contributions or “inputs” including (education, intelligence and

experience) and also their outcomes and then compare that ratio with others.

However, the equity rule proposed by Adams, (1965) and Leventhal, (1976) also

identified number of other allocation rules including equality and need. They suggest

that employees should receive equal and same outcomes or pay. According to the theory

40

of need the individuals should receive outcomes or pay on the basis of need (Conlon,

Porter & Parks, 2004, Leventhal, 1976). According to Cobb, Wooten and Folger, (1995)

and Leventhal, (1976) the method of reward or outcome distribution is mostly acceptable

because it reward should be distributed to individuals in respective to their contribution

in organization. Those individuals who contribute more in organization generally get

better compensations compare to those who contribute less.

Whereas the it is general expectation of everyone “to be fair” but people have different

perceptions regarding justice. When individuals perceive fairness they become more

productive (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). Whilst, when the employees perceive injustice

in organization, they may engage in negative work behaviors including

counterpoductive work behaviors.

Specifically, the distributive justice mainly focus on outcomes, when an individual

perceives unfairness regarding any particular outcome, it is more likely to the persons

gets affected by his emotions such as he may suffer from stress, anger, happiness, guilt

or pride when a person perceived inequity or injustice the ultimately their behavior will

result as withdrawal or poor performance.

1.14.1.2 PROCEDURAL JUSTICE

Procedural justice refers to fairness of the process or procedures which used to

determine outcomes or pay within organization (Folger & Greenberg 1985, Lind & Tyler

1988). According to the Leventhal 1980; Thibaut and Walker, 1975 the study of justice

purely defines the results of allocations of reward and distributive justice is about the

process of distribution of outcomes

The importance of procedural justice has been enlightened by two theories including

“Control Theory” introduced by Thibaut and Walker, (1975) who stated the notion of

procedural justice. According to the “control theory, the employees in organizations

want to control over the things which happen to them. Fair procedures are crucial

element because they let employees to control over the outcomes”.

The Second is concept of the group-value model given by Lind and Tyler, (1988) in

which they expressed that “employees want to be valuable members of their groups

within organization and for this purpose the fairness in procedures are desirable

because it reflect that individuals are important and valued”. As said by DeCremer et al.,

41

2005; Lind and Tyler, 1988 that employees use perception of fairness in procedures to

determine their value within an organization.

Although Thibaut and Walker., (1975) led the concept of procedural justice, mainly

focused on the people’s reactions towards the procedures w h i c h a r e followed

during the legal trials. The legal procedures got exclusive interest for many researchers

including Tyler, (1990).Though, it was efforts of Leventhal et al., (1980) for broaden the

concept of procedural justice in other contexts of organizational settings. As advised by

Leventhal, (1980) “for sureness of fairness in process of decision making, organizations

should consider the basic values and norms of related groups for better understanding

that what is important to them in their working setting”.

However different groups within different organizations have different norms and values

this is why it is difficult task for managers it was suggested by Blake & Mouton, (1984)

and Leventhal, (1980). In addition, the six rules a r e designed for procedure so that it

can be perceived as fair which are introduced by Leventhal, (1980). These rules are

concerned about how procedures should be applied constantly among the people and

across the time consider under the consistency rule

Those procedures should be free from bias in order to ensuring that decision making

process this term is consider under the bias-suppression rule the procedures ensure that

accurate information used in decision making process this rule termed under the

accuracy rule.

Those procedures should have few mechanisms to correct defective or inaccurate

decisions which are consider under the correct ability rule. Those procedures should

conform to personal or prevailing standards of ethic so moral values this term consider

under the ethicality rule

Those procedure should ensure that the opinions of various groups affected by the

decision have been taken in o account this term consider under the representativeness

rule.

The researches by Cobb Wooten and Folger, (1995) and Greenberg, (1990) have

mentioned that perception of procedural unfairness in workforces within organization

can create dissatisfaction among employees. Thus, if individual perceived procedural

justice within organization they are less likely to engage in counterprductive b e h aviors

even when rewards or outcomes do not meet their expectations and needs. Whereas

42

Folger and Cropanzano, (1998) stated that if the procedures are perceived to be unjust

they are more likely to exhibit counterproductive work reactions.

As said by Martin and Bennett, (1996) and Mossholder, (1998) procedural justice is

supposed to be linked with organizational behaviors such as organizational

commitment because Procedural justice demonstrates the organizational procedures

which determine the allocation of resources. Furthermore, according to Cropanzano &

Greenberg, (1997) and Folger and Cropanzano, (1998) lack of procedural justice in

organization can result as decrease in organizational citizenship behavior and an

increased level of intention to leave.

2.14.1.3 INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE

Bies and Moagin, (1986) was introduced the concept of interactional justice.It is also

said by Bies, 1987; Bies and Moag, 1986; Tyler and Bies, 1990 that the term

interactional justice is defined as “the quality of interpersonal treatment that people

expect to receive when procedures are implemented and emphasizes the importance of

truthfulness, respect and justification as fairness criteria of interpersonal

communication”.

So, it is said by Bies and Moag, 1986; Tyler and Bies, 1990 interactional justice is

concerned with the human side of practices which exercise in organization that are

related to the communication aspects of justice, which include politeness, kindness,

frankness, honesty and respect. It has been stated by Cobb, Vest and Hills, (1997) that

fairness is not only expressed by the prescribed policies and procedures of the

organization but by the perception of fairness among subordinates about their leaders is

also considered as major source of fairness in organization. Several researchers have

mostly focused on the leaders and subordinate’s relationship in context of fair treatment.

According to Bies, Shapiro and Cummings, 1988; Cobb, (1992); Tyler, Lind et al.,

(1998) that the word treatment can expressed by the message which is conveyed by the

leaders to their subordinates as well as their behavior like courtesy, respect and honesty,

and also the by which they implement the policies and procedures within

organization.

43

2.14.1.4 THE TWO FACETS OF INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE: INFORMATIONAL

JUSTICE AND INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE

Greenberg, (1993b) explain that there are two types of interactional justice. The one

c alled as informational justice refers to providing acknowledgment about procedures

whereas other called as interpersonal justice who refers to showing honesty and

frankness to the individuals about the distributive outcomes which they receive”. The

Informational justice concern about providing explanations to individual regarding

procedures which they use for distributing o f outcomes, whereas interpersonal justice

concern about the way of treating the individuals with kindness, poise and respect by

those involved in the performing the procedures o f outcomes allocation (Colquitt,2001).

Prior literature by Bies and Moag (1986), Colquitt (2001) and Folger and Cropanzano

(1998) shows that the interactional justice considered as aspect of procedural justice but

later on it has been developed as an independent construct which is assumed to be

different from other. Thus due to its impact on feelings of individuals and also their

perceptions and behavior, the Interactional Justice as gained extensive consideration in

an organization. However interactional fairness get concentration in order to improve

the attitudes and conducts of employees (Bies & Moag, 1986; Colquit et al.,2001).

Usually, However according to Folger and Cropanzano, (1998) the organizations make

hard efforts for fairness among employees but employees perceive some type of

unfairness in interpersonal treatment and other types of treatment perceived as fair

.According to Colquitt et al (2001); Folger and Cropanzano (1998); Folger and

Konovsky (1989) Though it has been observed that the component of interpersonal is

linked with the quality of the interpersonal conduct which an employee receives in

organizational settings . It has also been expressed that interpersonal treatment is

associated with different emotions that some individual feels towards their authority who

involve in process of decision making in organizational settings (Tyler, 1989).

2.15 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE–

OUTCOMES

In an organizational context the justice is very crucial component from two viewpoints:

one because it is an essential asset that organizations should keep (Rawls, 1971) and

second because of negative consequences that c a n b e emerge if it is absence (Adams,

44

1965; Crosby, 1984). Therefore, a desirable goal of a any workplace in any organization

is justice. Research has revealed t h e relationships b e t w e e n organizational justice

and s e v e r a l important work outcomes. Cropanzano and Folger (1991); Cropanzano

and Greenberg (1997), Folger and Cropanzano (1998) and many others have been

discovering the consequences of perceptions of injustice within employees and also

benefits of positive perceptions of justice of employees. However according to Colquitt

et al., (2001), Folger and Cropanzano (1998) the research has explored a positive

relationship among organizational justice and j o b satisfaction, group commitment, rule

compliance and communal esteem whereas according to Colquitt et al., (2001), Folger

& Cropanzano., (1998), Skarlicki et al., (1999). Organizational injustice is found as

positively interlinked with feelings of antagonism and counterproductive work behavior.

Research also exposed that due to injustice in organization the affected employees not

only come under the influence of envy, but they may also think about revenge. Sheppard

et al., (1992) have mentioned that the individuals who feel unfairness treatment within

organizations that employees might think about revenge and t ry to punish those who

are seem responsible for that treatment with them. In Additional, prior research has

demonstrate that revenge can be straight from affected person or it can incidental from

him/her.

However, Hollinger and Clark, (1983) conducted on 5,000 employees from business

organizations including retailing, construction and healthcare. The finding of that was

that when employees got affected by the employer, they start to get revenge or plan thefts

against that organization. In support of these result the Greenberg, (1990) has also found

negative relationship between pre-conception of fairness in employees and employee

theft in organization.

On other hand, Homans, (1961) has expressed that if the affected employee which is get

harmed by employer is not much powerful as much the perceived source of injustice

such as supervisors, bosses or the organizations then the retaliation or revenge will be

highly likely can be indirect.

These finding are justified by various researchers like according to Hulin, (1991) the

perceived fairness and absenteeism are negatively related.. According to Green berg,

(1990,1993) the justice in organization also impacts on employee behaviors.

45

This research studied direct relationships of power and perception of politics;

dimensions of organizational justice and with some outcomes including job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior OCB and

intent to turnover. Furthermore, this study also concerns with justice as a moderator of

perception of politics POP and their relationships with its outcome. Primarily there are

two factors which motivated for studying these outcomes for this research. First, these

outcomes which are taken in study have consistently been explored in the context of

“industrial psychology” and “organizational” behavior because these are crucial for

effective organizational functions. Second, it has been given an opportunity to

investigate the “individual” as well as “collective” effects of perceptions of politics and,

organizational justice and other important outcomes in single study.

46

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The chapter of research methodology is all concern about the selection of

appropriate methodology by which the validity and reliability of the study must be

drawn. Hence in this chapter there is a comprehensible and detailed rationalization

is provided that how this research is carried out and why the researcher had chosen

this particular method. In this chapter, the research methodology of this study is

identified in the following items:

3.2 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHIES

3.2.1 ONTOLOGY

Ontology and epistemology are two different elements of philosophy. Ontology

can be defined as “the science or study deals with the nature of reality. Ontology

is a scientific investigation that relies on individual’s understanding about the fact.

More simply we can say that ontology is all about a critical question that either a

social body should consider as objective or subjective. The two main aspects of

ontology are objectivism/positivism and subjectivism.

Objectivism describes the situation that social body is executing in real ity apart

from social actors called with their subsistence. As contra, objectivism is an

ontological condition that describes that social occurrence and their meanings have

a reality which is independent of social actor.

Subjectivism also called as constructionism or interpretivism on alternate,

considered that social events are planned from perceptions and consequent steps

of social actors who concerned with their reality. Formally, constructionism can

be defined as “ontological condition which declares that social phenomenon and

47

their outcomes are frequently being fulfilled by social actors”. The ontology of

major research philosophies including Interpretivism, Positivism, Realism and

Pragmatism related to business and management studies.

In start of the research process the identification of ontology is crucially important

because it help to choose research design. Below it is described the effects of

ontology on the choice of research methodology in business or management by

application of epistemology, research approach, research strategy and methods of

data collection and data analysis.

3.2.1.1 ONTOLOGY IN BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

Luckily, it is not necessary to discuss ontology in bulk amount while writing thesis

in business studies. But understanding of these philosophies are very important

also in Bachelor’s or Master’s level, while we have to devote more time to read

ontology on a business research at a PhD level.

We can use ontology in business and management research described as firs tly,

we have to clear our understanding about the philosophies. Secondly, we have to

clear that either we are adopting objectivism or constructivism view. Finally, we

have to discuss application of our ontological choice in viewpoint of epistemology,

research approach and research strategy and data collection method.

3.2.2 INTERPRETIVISM AND POSITIVISM

3.2.2.1 WHAT IS ONTOLOGY AND WHAT IS EPISTEMOLOGY

Ontology is branch of philosophy which deals with study of nature of existence

while, as said by Carson et al., 2001 the epistemology refers as the relationship

between the researcher and the reality or how this reality is confine or come to

known. There are two leading ontological and epistemological ideologies or

paradigms including Positivism and Interpretivism.

1. Positivism:

48

According to Carson et al., (1988) the positivist ontology describe that the world

is external and as said by the Hudson and Ozanne, (1988) that without perception

and belief of researcher there is a single objective existence of any research

situation. Therefore, it is argued by Churchill (1996); Carson et al., (2001) that

there should be taken a controlled and structural strategy in carry out research by

identifying a clear research topic, creating proper hypotheses and by implementing

an appropriate research methodology.

Carson et al., (2001) mentioned a very important characteristic of positivism is

that the Positivist researchers will always remain unattached to being in research

by having a distance, because it is very necessary to remain unbiased emotionally

to draw a valid conclusion involving reasoning and feeling.

To generate time and context free generality is aim of any positivist researcher. In

this regard it is stated by Hudson and Ozanne, (1988) that the positivistic

researcher believes this is possible because human actions can be determined as a

finding of real sources that temporarily lead their behaviour and his research is not

dependent and do not impact each other.

Positivist researchers will always remain unattached to being in research by having

a distance through maintaining distance from participants. Particularly, this is a

central step in research because it is very necessary to remain unbiased

emotionally to draw a valid conclusion involving reasoning and feeling.

2. Interpretivism:

It is stated by Hudson and Ozanne, (1988) that interpretivists believe the reality is

manifold and relative. According to Lincoln and Guba, (1985) the different

realities also depend on other structure to formulate, the realities which are fixed

that are more difficult to examine. Carson et al., (2001) said that the knowledge

which we get in this discipline is socially generated, don’t determined objectively.

It is stated by Carson et al., (2001), Hudson and Ozanne, (1988) that the researcher

and participants are dependent on each other and also equally interactive.

49

Hudson and Ozanne, (1988) support that the interpretivist researcher come into

the field with some kind of preceding of the research, but he also assumes that

these evidences are not enough in order to adopting a specified research design

because of multifaceted, rigid and changeable nature of reality. The researcher

uses to remain active in order to enter in new knowledge the whole time of study.

Therefore, the usage of these an evolving and concerted approach is constant with

the interpretivist believe that humans are adaptive, and nobody could get preceding

knowledge of time and context bound social realities.

Approach Description Source

Positivistic Positivistic also sustain a

clear difference between

science and personal

experience. Therefore, in

research adopting objectivity

and use constantly rational

and logical paradigms is

crucially important. In

positivist research statistical

and mathematical techniques

and tool are compulsory.

Carson et al., in 2001

Interpretivists Interpretivists don’t use

complex structural

frameworks such as in

positivist research and also

implement a flexible research

design. Interpretivist chooses

those structures that are

easily accessible and

Carson et al., in 2001

Table 2: Review of two philosophical paradigms

50

understandable for individual

who are in interaction and

also give a sense of reality

Source: Develop by researcher

Consequently, according to Neuman (2000); Hudson and Ozanne (1988) the aim

of interpretivist research is not to generalize and predict causes and effects, the

objective of this research is to understand the meanings in human behaviour. They

also conclude that for an interpretivist researcher it is essential to recognize

intentions, motivations, meanings, reasons and other subjective experiences which

are bound for time and context.

According to Cavana et al., (2001) that quantitative design starts from supporting

the theory, proposing hypothesis, collection of data and analysis of data that

collected, and then accepting or rejecting those proposed hypotheses. On the other

hand, “an interpretivist research method is observation phenomena, analysing

patterns and creating themes, formulating relationships, and then developing a

theory, collecting supportive evidences for the theory, and developing then

generate hypotheses”.

51

Figure 5: Research Approach


3.3 TYPE OF RESEARCH

The nature or context of this research is categories as a basic, fundamental, or

pure. The main contribution of this study is to provide extensive knowledge of two

vast areas of organizational behavior, including organizational politics. To test a

causal relationship between variables and testing of the hypotheses through

collection and analysis of quantitative data which were received from the relevant

sample.

3.4 RESEARCH APPROACH

In this research, researcher examined the relationship among independent

variables and dependent variables. For development of theoretical model for

empirical examination, researcher presented huge literature. In order to examine

relationship between independent and dependent variables, the conceptual

Theory

hypothsis

Observation

Finding

INDUCTIVE APPROACH DEDUCTIVE APPROACH

Finding

Observation

Hypothesis

Theory

52

framework and extensive literature on organizational behavior and job attitudes

helped researcher to develop hypotheses.

For this research, researcher adopted quantitative approach to collect and analysis

of data. As said by Baroudi, (1991) the positivism approach based on deductive

method in which we propose hypotheses. According to Hussey and Hussey, (1997)

the procedure of positivist approach, first we start by studying the literature, and

then we develop the proper theory and the hypotheses. For this study the main

reason to adopt quantitative approach is to determine the relationship among the

variables. And also, according to ontological perspective, being a realistic it helps

in to find out social facts. Although in Epistemological aspect, this allows

independent observable facts in society.

The methodology, measurement and overall theme of this study are related to the

objectivist approach. The procedures and methods of objectivist approach are

related to that work which discovers a general law, this type of approach normally

referred as ‘nomothetic’.

The questionnaire was distributed among targeted population in order to gather

data for the study because this is an empirical study. Teaching faculty and

administration staff of Public sector universities of Sindh Province of Pakistan

was the sample population for this study. To test the hypotheses and examine the

relationship between the independent and dependent variables and analyze the

data, statistical measures were used. Before carried out final study, a pilot study

was performed in order to check survey questionnaire reliability, language, and

time limits for performing the survey.

3.5 RESEARCH DESIGN

Rosenthal and Rosnow, (2008) defined Research design has been described as

overall planning of conducting a research that contains several factors.

This research is based on quantitative method by using a questionnaire in order to

collect data. Collecting the personnel information such as age, gender, occupation,

education level, working experiences are consider as employment data which

53

fulfill the objective of this research, the study is focused on administrative and

non-administrative staff of public sector universities of Sindh province only.

The present research can be classified as basic, fundamental, or pure in

nature/context. It contributes in provide extensive literature and knowledge about

two considerable areas of organizational behavior, including organizational

politics and organizational justice. The hypotheses have been tested by

quantitative analysis of data which have gathered by targeted population to find

the causal relationships among all variables.

The purpose of this research is to understand and examine the relationship among

independent variable such as perception of organizational power and politics with

dependent variable of job attitude including Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement,

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Organizational commitment, Burnout,

Turnover Intention and also examines the mediating role of Organizational Justice

with these outcomes.

According to John 2004 and Sarantakos, (1993) the research design is based on

the supposition that research is process based on different steps which are related

to each other, so it is important that one step should be successful in order to

complete next step. According to Robson, (1993) the research process can only be

successful when researcher makes the right application of research design.

The researcher chooses deductive method as a research design in this s tudy. As

said by Sekran, (2006) in deductive method, we develop hypotheses and make

strategy to test these hypotheses. Again, Sekran, (2010) that deductive method is

a method in which their series of elements which guide us to answering the

research questions.

According to John, (2004) the research design explains the hypothetical method

in which we get the answers of the research questions and also validate the

hypothesis that we developed on the basis of relevant literature and conceptual

framework. Therefore, for this study, research choose the deductive method, that

is scientific method, there are series of steps in this method, that help us to get

answers of research questions which we proposed for the study. In the beginning

of research process, researcher started to review extensive literature to understand

54

the main domain of Organizational Behavior and of job attitudes. In the next step,

after having detailed review on literature, researcher identified a research gap and

then a theoretical and diagrammatic form of conceptual model was developed for

this study.

The conceptual framework of this study on two major dimensions. The first is

organizational characteristics or organizational behavior domain including

perception of organizational power and politics and perception of organizational

justice, the second dimensions are based on employee job related attitudes

including such organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior,

job satisfaction, job involvement, job related burnout, turnover intention.

All these factors are combined in order to understand the employee’s perception

regarding existence of power and politics in the organizations and the effects o f

these perceptions on their work-related attitudes and also examined employee

perceptions of justice and how these perception effects on employee work related

attitudes. And mainly this study examined the relationship between these two

broad areas including perception of organizational power and politics and

perception of organizational justice.

For the purpose of testing hypothesis, examination of conceptual model, data was

necessarily needed. Therefore, for the purpose of data collection positivist

paradigm approach were adopted by the researcher. As said by Chua, (1986) in

positivist paradigm, we review detailed literature and formulate hypothesis on

basis of framework model. According to Baroudi, (1991) and Saunders et al.,

(2007) in the positivist paradigm of research philosophy the survey questionnaire

contains Likert scale in which respondent give/tick / select the answers multiple

range of options to express their views. In Likert scale instrument there are options

ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree from these options, the

respondents have to select the option by agreeing or disagreeing with statements.

According to Saunders et al., (2007) and Sekran, (2010) the type of scale that have

rating options is usually using to understand and determine the required attitudes

of respondents.

55

Figure 6: Research Process


If Desire

Result obtained

If Not Prove

Review Literature

Identify Gap

Set Research

Objectives

Develop Conceptual

Framework Propose Hypothesis

Conduct Pilot Study

Develop Research

Instrument

Empirical Analysis of Data

Full Scale study Findings

56

3.6 RESEARCH STRATEGY

As defined by Saunders et al., (2007) the Research strategy describes that how to

get answer of research questions which are developed by researcher for that study.

There are different approaches adopted by researchers depend on research design

of particular study, these approaches may include experiments, surveys, case

studies, grounded theories, ethnography and action research.

For this study, researcher chooses survey strategy with likert scaling in which

questionnaires developed containing statements and having range of options to

assess the attitude of respondent. The items in the questionnaire measured

employee’s perception of organizational factors like politics and justice and also

researcher can measure employees work related attitudes.

In this strategy, deductive research approach is used which help us to collect large

amount of data from a substantial population and it is very economical. Data is

generally gathered by questionnaire instrument. Furthermore, according to

Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, (2008) survey strategy is considered as easily

understood technique from others.

The prior research conducted by other researchers regarding these similar variables by

Raja, Johns and Ntalianis, (2004) in Pakistan also adopt same method and got

promising results. Likewise, other more relevant researches conducted by various

scholars from different countries also same methodology. Like a research

conducted by Harris et al., (2005); Hochwarter et al., (2000) and Poon (2006) that

investigated POP as moderator, in this research, survey methodology was carried

out. There are various researches that also examined the relationships between justice

dimensions and work-related outcomes and also collected data by questionnaires

that studies include Kickul, Gundry and Posing (2005), Lambert, Hogan and

Griffin (2007), McFarlin and Sweeney (1992), Posthuma (2007), Skarlicki and Folger

(1997) and also Sweeny and McFarlin (1997).

57

3.7 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

In this study, the questionnaire instrument is used for collecting data from relevant

respondents. The respondents were teaching faculty and administration staff of

public sector universities of sindh province in Pakistan.

3.7.1 DEVELOPMENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT

For this study, in order to inspect the research, question the questionnaire

instrument was adopted from different studies. Because a positivist paradigm was

adopted in this study, so first which we develop hypotheses and then we examine

those hypotheses. Before examination of hypothesis we need to data analysis, for

the purpose of data collection of this research survey instrument was used.

According to Saunders et al., (2007) a survey instrument is a approach by which

we easily examine the employee attitudes concerning various work characteristics.

As discussed earlier for this study, researcher chooses survey strategy with Likert

scaling in which questionnaires developed containing statements and having range

of options to assess the attitude of respondent. The items in the questionnaire

measured employee’s perception of organizational factors like politics and justice

and also researcher can measure employees work related attitudes.

Section Name No. Of Items

Section A Demographic Information 6

Section B Procedural Justice 7

Section C Distributive Justice 6

Section D Interpersonal Justice 6

Section E Informational Justice 6

Section F (OCB) 25

Table 3: Structure of Questionnaire Instrument

58

Section G (POP) 10

Section H Job Involvement 10

Section I Turnover Intension 3

Section K Organizational Commitment 10

Section L Work Related Burnout 7

The survey questionnaire which used in this study was based on several sections

including section A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L Section A was based on

demographic information of the participants. In This section 6 questions were

mentioned about personal profile of respondents. These questions were having

different variables including gender, age, marital status, occupation, Experience

and academic qualification, which help researcher to understand that how these

variable impacts on employee perception and their attitudes.

Section B was consisting of 7 items of procedural justice. These items refer to the

procedures used by which we receive our outcome simply it was about are we

fairly rewarded or not. Section C contained 6 items of Distributive justice. These

items were about outcome. (Salary/Pay). Section D consisted 6 items of

Interpersonal justice. These items indicate (the authority figure that performs the

procedure). Section E was containing 6 items of Informational justice. These

items were about role of person who performs procedure that to what extent he/she

provides us information regarding procedures. After the demographic information

these all Survey questions from 1 to 20 are about employee perceptions of justice

in organizations which comprises of these four dimensions. All these items were

used to measure employee perceptions of justice and fairness within organization.

Section F consisted on Organizational Citizenship Behavior having 25 items,

questions ranging from (21 to 35) to measure the volunteer behavior of employees

within organization. Section G contained 13 items of perception of Organizational

politics the questions ranging from (36 to 48) was used to measure employee

59

perception of politics within organization. Section H depended on 10 items of job

involvement questions from (49 to 59) were used to examine employee

involvement in their job. Section I was containing 3 items of Turnover Intension,

questions ranging from (60 to 62) to measure employee’s intention to leave that

organization. Section J was consisting 10 items of Job Satisfaction, questions

ranging from (63 to 72) were used to examine that to what extend employees were

satisfied with their job. Section K was based on 9 items of Organizational

Commitment, questions ranging from (73 to 81) to assess employee commitment

with their organization. Section L was consisting on 7 items of Work Related

Burnout, questions ranging from (82 to 89) to examine employee burnout due to

their job. This survey instrument d eveloped for this research is consisting of 98

items adopted from various studies which have reliable and validated results.

3.8 MEASUREMENT SCALES

This study is based on positivist research paradigm so independent and dependent

variables are taken. Perception of Politics is independent variable of the study and

perception of Organizational Justice is used as mediator in prediction that it could

mitigate the negative effects of organizational Politics on work related outcomes

including Job Satisfaction, job involvement, job related burnout, and turnover

intensions of employees, organizational citizenship behavior and commitment, and

these are dependent variables of the study. The answers will be measured in 7-

point Likert scale. Additionally, other variables including gender of respondents,

age group, qualifications of respondents, years of service, and marital status were

calculated in demographic information. The scales which are used in this study are

adopted from prior studies which have reliable score. These reliability and validity

of those scales were tested by conducting pilot study. Later than collecting all the

relevant information and measuring all tests regarding validity and reliability,

ultimately the instrument was ready to be sent to Universities of Sindh Province,

Pakistan.

3.9 POPULATION

The population of this research was teaching faculty and administrative staff of

government universities of sindh province of Pakistan.

60

3.10 OPERATIONALIZATION OF SCALE

3.10.1 PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

Kacmar and Ferris, (1991) suggested the first version of the scale with 40 items,

which was re-examined by Kacmar and Carlson, (1997), who proposed a more

parsimonious 12-item scale. Sample Items are “Favoritism is commonly accepted

in this university”, “Organizational politics plays vital role in transfer and

postings in this university”. Researcher adjusted Kacmar and Carlson’s, (1997)

scale slightly to fit the organizational environment of a public research university.

Respondents respondent as to what extent they agreed with statement. & point Likert

scale was used. The scale ranged from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree, so

that higher score means higher perceptions of organizational politics.

3.10.2 ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

Seven items of Procedural justice by Thibaut & Walker, (1975) and Leventhal,

(1980) items were used. Sample Items are “Are you able to express your views and

feelings during those procedures”, 4 items of Distributive justice by Leventhal ,

(1976) e.g. “Your (outcome) reflect the effort you have put into your work”, 4

items of Interpersonal justice by Bies & Moag, (1986) were adopted e.g. “Has

(he/she) treated you in a polite manner”? 5 items of Informational justice by Bies

& Moag, (1986) and Shapiro et al., (1994) were used e.g “ He/ She have been

honest in (his/her) communications with you”. Respondent’s respond as to what

extent they agreed with statement. & point Likert scale was used. The scale ranged

from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree, so that higher score means higher

perceptions of organizational Justice within organization.

3.10.3 JOB INVOLVEMENT

Ten items were used to assess Job Involvement in organization, items were

originally developed Kanungo, (1982). Sample Items are “I Make innovative

suggestions to improve departments” and “Most of my interests are centered

around my job”. Respondent’s respond as to what extent they agreed with statement.

& point Likert scale was used. The scale ranged from 1=strongly disagree to

61

7=strongly agree, so that higher score means higher Job Involvement within

organization.

3.10.4 JOB SATISFACTION

Ten items were adopted from the study of Scott Macdonald and Peter Maclntyre

(1992). Sample Items are e.g. “I receive appreciation for well-done job” and “I

feel good about working at this university”. Respondent’s respond as to what extent

they agreed with statement. And point Likert scale was used. The scale ranged

from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree, so that higher score means higher Job

Satisfaction within organization.

3.10.5 JOB RELATED BURNOUT

Seven items of Copenhagen Burnout Inventory were used to assess burnout

development by Kristensen et al., (2005). Sample Items are “Do you feel burnt out

because of your work?” and “Is your work emotionally exhausting?”.Respondent’s

respond as to what extent they agreed with statement. & point Likert scale was used.

The scale ranged from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree, so that higher score

means higher work-related burnout found within organization.

3.10.6 TURNOVER INTENSION

Three items were used to measure intent to turnover within organization,

developed by Camman, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh, (1979). Sample Items are “1

often think of leaving the organization” and “If I may choose again, I will choose

to work for the current organization”. Respondent’s respond as to what extent they

agreed with statement. & point likert scale was used. The scale ranged from

1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree, so that higher score means higher intent to

turnover of employees within organization.

3.10.7 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Employee commitment was measured by the 9-item Organizational Commitment

Questionnaire (OCQ) Mowday Steers and Porter (1979). Sample Items are “ I am

62

proud to tell others that I am part of this university” and “I find that my values

and the university 's values are very similar”.

3.10.8 ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR

25 items were adopted from the study by Podsakoff et al.'s (1990). Sample Items

are “I Help others who have been absent” and “I Make innovative suggestions to

improve departments”.

63

CHAPTER 4

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND

DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In this section, the perception of organizational politics and organizational justice and

their relationships with each other with its outcomes including organizational

citizenship behavior, job commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement, turnover

intension and job-related burnout are discussed individually. also, in the light of

supporting literature available for these variables in the end of each section the

proposed hypotheses are given.

4.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

From last two decades researchers are taking interest in existence of politics within

organizations. However, like politics every factor has its two sides negative and positive.

But the extensive and strong evidences found in literature in this study researchers focus

on “dark side” Ferris and King, (1991) of organizational politics. In organization the

politics is consider as illegitimate means those actions which are only consider for self-

interest, that are harmful for organization as they effect the productivity of employees

and spoil the working environment at workplace. (Kacmar et al., 1999; Mintzberg,

1983).

The conceptual framework of this study on two major dimensions. The first is

organizational characteristics and organizational behavior domain including perception

of organizational power and politics and perception of organizational justice, the second

dimensions are based on employee job related attitudes including such organizational

commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, job involvement, job

related burnout, turnover intention.

The researches show that perceptions of organizational politics (POP) has more

negative outcomes than positive.Likewise the extensive literature found that

perceptions of organizational politics (POP) is related with a number of negative

64

outcomes for employees as well as for organization therefore it is critically

important for organizations to focus this factor that can cause of hindrance in

organizational development.

The existence of Perceptions of politics in organization is no doubt will create adverse

effects at workplace. As said by Ferris et al., (1996) it is source of stress therefore its

consequences are also harmful and stressful, therefore it is concluded by many studies

including Ferris et al., (1996), Cropanzano et al., (1997), Randall et al., (1999)

perceptions of politics are positively related to burnout as proposed by this conceptual

framework. In this framework also proposed that perception of organizational politics is

negatively related to organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and previous research

has also shown that politics and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are

negatively related (Randall et al., 1999). The authors posited including Cropanzano et

al., (1997), Ferris et al., (1989) that perceptions of politics are negatively associated with

job involvement.

Consequently this framework propose that perceptions of organizational politics (POP)

is as having a generally positive relationship with turnover intentions also recommended

by studies of Ferris et al., (1993), Chang et al., (2009). When employees feel politics at

their work place their usually intend to leave that organization and a negative

relationship with job satisfaction as concluded by Ferris and Kacmar, (1992),Chang et

al., (2009), they conclude when perceptions of organizational politics (POP) will

increase , employee’s level of satisfaction regarding their job will effect negatively.

Therefore, the major focus of researchers is to find factors to mitigating the negative

effects of politics including Ferris et al., (1996), Hochwarter et al, (1999). As

organizational Justice is considered as perfect mechanism for managing these negative

effects of organizational politics as concluded by many studies by Cavanagh, Moberg,

& Velasquez, (1981); Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, (1989); Cropanzano, Kacmar & Bozeman,

(1995); Ferris et al., (1996); Andrews & Kacmar, (2001).

So, in this framework Organizational justice means having perceptions of fairness in the

workplace is react as mediator to mitigate the negative effects of organizational politics.

`

According to Ferris et al., (1989) the person who judges their environment fair and in

controlled is consider politics as opportunity not threat. Therefore, having fairness at

65

workplace can minimize the negative effects of politics. So, this supposition will be test

empirically in this study that fairness will mitigate the negative effects of politics on

major work-related outcomes.

Subsequently this framework reflects that it has been proposed that after mediating of

organizational justice, the negative outcomes of organizational politics will drastically

change in positive. So, this framework reflects that researches show that those who

perceive high levels of organizational justice will demonstrate high levels of

organizational commitment, will decrease the level of job stress, also demonstrate high

organizational citizenship behaviors, will also have job satisfaction, and having low

intentions to leave the organization (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001)

Uncertainly if employees perceive there is presence of organizational justice, their

burnout will reduce. These research results are consistent with Liljegren & Ekberg

(2009), Lambart & et al., (2010) and Al-zhrani (2011).

Hence, the purpose of the present conceptual framework to show that this study is going

to examine the perceptions of organizational politics, justice, and work-related outcomes

by investigating their relationships with one another.

66

Figure 7: Conceptual Framework

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THIS STUDY

Organizational

Justice

Organizational

Citizenship

Behavior

Job Involvement

Organizational

Commitment

Job Satisfaction

Perception of

Organizational Power

and Politics (POP)

Work Related Burnout

Turnover Intension

67

4.3 PERCEPTIONS OF POLITICS AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE -

OUTCOMES RELATIONSHIPS

In view of the fact that Ferris et al. was pioneer of theoretical model of politics

perceptions in year 1989, and an extensive part of the subsequent research and theory

introduced about organizational politics perceptions has implicated with empirical

testing. He also examined various additional antecedents along with mediator and

moderator outcome variables.

After introducing this model, perceptions of organizational politics is indicated as

“environmental stressors” as discussed by Ferris et al., (1996), that has been examined

by a number of important work outcomes and have been researched as a direct

predecessor to various work related outcomes including organizational commitment,

job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, organizational withdrawal behavior,

job performance, job satisfaction, intent to turnover and actual turnover and also other.

Again, the studies by McFarlin and Sweeney, (1992) and Cohen-Charash and Spector,

(2001) expressed that when they examined procedural justice and distributive justice

independently, they found that both have positive relationship with job satisfaction and

negatively related to turnover intentions. The Research findings of Colquitt study in

2001 showed that the organizational justice is positively correlated with organizational

commitment, OCB and job satisfaction, while organizational justice has negatively

related with job stress and turnover intentions.

It is Argued by various researchers like Ferris et al., (1989); Poon, (2003) that

"perceptions of organizational politics have typically been positioned as a predictor or

outcome variable in both theoretical and empirical works" The outcomes POP

influence by a mediating variable. Having this consideration, the researcher decided to

investigate organizational justice with its four dimensions as mediating with six jobs

related outcomes in addition to the direct relationships of the perceptions of politics and

justice dimensions and with these outcomes. The mediating role of organizational

justice is conceptualized on the following grounds:

1 Many studies have been carried out which conclude the significant role of both

perceptions of politics and organizational justice with personal and organizational

68

outcomes. Therefore, this study also conducted to predict perception of politics with

mediating role of justice dimensions on work related outcomes.

2 As shown in conceptual frame work, this study also examined direct and

independent relationships of justice dimensions with perceptions of politics and job

outcomes and also investigated their combined effects on outcomes which have never

been examined in this context. It is also mentioned in literature review that many studies

have shown similar results of direct effects of the organizational justice and perceptions

of politics So, for this study it was also expected that when they will directly and

indirectly interacted with each other then it will provide in-depth results of these

outcomes.

As every factor has its positive and negative aspects, but Adamski, (1992) organizational

politics have more negative aspects than positive which are widely explored by various

researchers. According to Kacmar et al., (1999) organizational politics has "the potential

to disrupt organizational efficiency and effectiveness, it is often considered

dysfunctional, although it can work either for or against an organization".

It is said by Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, (1988) Organizational politics "restricts

information sharing, consumes time and creates communication barriers". Poon,

(2003), mentioned that "a work place that is rife with politics is stressful to work in, not

conducive for promoting positive job attitudes and likely to have high employee

turnover". Ferris et al. (2002) also stated that "Indeed, because the research to date on

politics perceptions has tended to adopt a more negative perspective and definition, this

perspective has driven the development of measurement devices to assess perceptions of

politics".

4.4 DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESE

After reviewing extensive literature in this research, the researcher proposed perceptions

of politics as more negative aspects than positive. And it has been observed that

Organizational justice is measured as authentic tool to tackle with negative influences

of organizational politics. Consequently, by keeping following main effects and

interactive effects in view these hypotheses were proposed

69

4.4.1 RELATIONSHIP OF PERCEPTIONS OF POLITICS AND ORGANIZATIONAL

JUSTICE

As according to Tyler and Lind, (1992) by existence of justice we can expose honesty

of management and also ensure that subordinates support their supervisors. Therefore,

perception of justice can mitigate the uncertainty within organization and those who

perceives justice at their workplace would consider politics as opportunity not threat. It

was also said by Ferris, (1989) justice perception in employees can cut down negative

impacts of politics.

A study by Byrne, (2005) also investigated the relationship between organizational

justice, with politics, other work-related outcomes like OCB and employee’s turnover

intentions. The effects of organizational politics are perceived as adverse to

organizational justice. Ferris et al. (1995) expressed that the nexus between them is very

complex. According Ferris et al., (1989) the person who is at the helm of political power

will consider politics as an opportunity not threat. In many studies it was concluded that

distributive justice, is more relevant to investigating organizational politics. For

instance, the people those who suppose that promotions can be granted through political

nepotism but to strange if proper rules and regulations had been applied then working

environment would have not been such unfair as now.

Therefore, there is, a negative relationship is expected between perceptions of politics

and procedural justice. So, this study also investigates the relationship between

organizational politics and organization justice including its four dimensions. Thus,

keeping following research evidences in view, following hypothesis for this research

was made:

Hypothesis 1:

Perception of Organizational Politics is negatively related with Organizational

Justice

4.4.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS –

TURNOVER INTENTION

Organizational withdrawal may occur in to two practices one is turnover or other is

absenteeism. Though turnover is also categories into two types (1) intent to turnover and

70

(2) actual turnover. Prior research has found mixed finding for intent to turnover. For

example, few studies including Cropanzano and colleagues, 1997; Maslyn and Fedor.,

1998; Perrewe and colleagues 1999; Kacmar and colleagues, 1999; and Valle &

Perrewe, 2000 concluded positive relationship however some other studies like

Cropanzano and colleagues, 1997; Harrel-Cook and colleagues, 1999; Perrewe and

colleagues, 1999 and Randall and colleagues, 1999 not found a substantial relationship

between perception of politics (POP) and intent to turnover. However, For actual

turnover, Witt in 1999 suggested they have positive link with each other. Though, few

other studies including Ferris and colleagues, 1993, Gilmore and colleagues, 1996 did

not find perception of politics (POP) significantly related to absenteeism or punctuality.

A study “The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee

attitudes, strain, and behavior: a meta-analytic examination” by chang, Rosen, and Levy

2009 which they examined the links perceptions of organizational politics to job

performance and “turnover intentions” (intentions to quit)”. Meta-analytic evidence

supported significant relationships between perceived politics and turnover intentions.

In addition to it, it was also concluded that job attitudes intercede the effects of perceived

politics on employee turnover intentions. In conclusion, exploratory analyses provided

evidence that perceived politics is caused as “hindrance stressor.”

Accordingly, on the basis of above research evidences, following hypothesis for this

research was proposed:

Hypothesis 2:

Perception of Organizational Politics is positively related to Turnover Intension

4.4.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTIONS OF POLITICS AND

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

As stated by Organ, in 1990 organizational citizenship behaviors or OCB is one of the

type of positive work attitude at workplace in which the actions are done beyond the

given in one’s job description. Good or positive work attitude acts as the work done on

voluntary basis or in courtesy and not for the sake of monetary reward.

Studies by Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann and Birjulin, (1994) found a significant

negative correlation between OCB and politics. Again, other study by Randall,

71

(1999) also conclude the similar finding that organizational politics and

“organizational citizenship behavior” (OCBs) have a negative relationship.

According to Smith, Organ and Near, (1983) presence politics depend on the

perception, if person believe there is politics at workplace then it would lead to a

decrease in organizational citizenship behaviors and a lack of extra role effort on

the individual's part.

Accordingly, because of above research evidences, following hypothesis for this

research was proposed:

Hypothesis 3:

Perception of Organizational Politics is negatively related to Organizational

Citizenship Behaviors

4.4.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTIONS OF POLITICS AND JOB-RELATED

BURNOUT

In 1974 the Freudenberger was the first who invented the notion of burnout and

was conceived as an "occupational hazard". As cited in Sağlam Arı & Çına Bal,

(2008), burnout was described by Freudenberger as “a loss of energy or power due

to failure, degradation, and overload or exhaustion of individual's internal

resources due to unmet demands” .Kahn & Langlieb (2003) stressed that the

prevailing trend of job stress like burnout is growing due to stress at workplace

which is matter of concern for both employees and organizations, and it is also

become important to them to make strategies for mitigating the negative impacts

of job stress. It is said by Maslach and colleagues (2001) that job burnout is

physical, emotional and mental exhaustion due to prolong stress. Many factors at

workplace can cause job burnout as said by Cropanzano et al., (1997); Randall et

al., (1999) that the employees who perceive politics at workplace also suffer from

high level of stress, burnout regarding job and shows strong feeling towards

leaving the organization.

Hence keeping these research evidences in view, following hypothesis for this research

was made:

72

Hypothesis 4:

Perception of Organizational Politics is positively related to Job Related Burnout

4.4.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

AND JOB SATISFACTION

According to Ferris et al., (1989) it has been empirically concluded that having

maneuver for political spectrum is directly related to dissatisfaction of employees at

workplace.

He also emphasized that the degree of greater influence of politics decreases the level of

job satisfaction. In further line argument due to the presence of politics it helps

employees to judge their organization as threat or opportunity. Therefore, those

employees who consider high political interference within organization will generally

demonstrate dissatisfaction towards their job.

Ferris et al (1989) proposed a model, that model elaborate that all positive behavioral

and attitudinal outcomes of employees are negatively affected by organizational politics.

Kacmar and Ferris (1991) defined POP “the extent to which individuals view their

working environment as political in nature, promoting self-interests of others and

thereby unfair and unjust from the individual point of view.”

As said by Robb, (2011) the politics at workplace is all about the employee’s perception

regarding their environment within organization, these perceptions influence their

feelings towards organization, colleagues and supervisors and ultimately these feelings

effect their satisfaction towards their work.

Consequently, On the basis of following research evidence found in literature, following

hypothesis for this research was made:

Hypothesis 5:

Perception of Organizational Politics is negatively related to Job Satisfaction

73

4.4.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL

POLITICS AND COMMITMENT

As debated above politics has a negative effect on the organization’s working system.

Which are not very simple and objective in nature rather complex and subtle here there

are few variables examined in different studies and also considered important in this

study. That are includes negative outcomes of organizational politics and that are

discussed below:

Favoritism (Malik, et al., 2009); lack of organizational citizenship behaviors like

employees are whirl in professional jealousy (Chang, et al., 2009), increasing the level

of job dissatisfaction and reason of job stress (Miller, et al., 2008), and also decreases in

commitment to the organization and decreases job performance (Witt, Andrews, &

Kacmar, 2000), negligent behaviors (Vigoda, 2000), and also growing rates of employee

turnover (Randall, et al., 1999). Selected negative influences of organizational politics

are taken in considering.

A meta-analytic study by Chang et al. (2009) and Miller et al., (2008) concluded with

valid proofs that perceptions of organizational politics are workplace are associated to

reduced job satisfaction, organizational commitment, citizenship behavior, task

performance and increased psychological strain.

Further, more studies by Ferris eta l., (2002) also gave concluded with strong evidences

that there are relationships between perception of politics and other work outcomes e.g.

provided job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, and job anxiety. Also

explored by Ferris et al. (2002) that job related anxiety, job satisfaction, affective

commitment, performance, and turnover intentions can be results of perceptions of

organizational politics, even these can be occurred simultaneously. Those studies also

support this fact like it was argued that who perceive politics within organization

experience high lelev of dissatisfaction related their job at workplace study by Kacmar

and colleagues, (1999), Zhou & Ferris, (1995) and organizational commitment by

Randall & colleagues, (1999), increased job stress mentioned by Cropanzano and

colleagues, (1997) and also by Kacmar, (1999) and are more likely to leave the

organization it is also given by Kacmar and his colleagues, (1999)

Accordingly, on the basis of above research evidence, following hypothesis for this

research was made:

74

Hypothesis 6:

Perception of Organizational Politics is negatively related to Organizational

Commitment

4.4.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTION Of ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

AND JOB INVOLVEMENT

Blau and Boal, (1987) defines Job involvement as the amount in which an individual

recognizes with a work or job, which he/she perform actively and consider his/her overall

performance essential to self-esteem. Cropanzano et al. (1997) stated that “job

involvement is a measure of how many an employee’s recognized or identified with

their job or what input they gave in job”. Cropanzano and colleagues, (1997) also

explained that those employees who are highly involved in their job those consider their

job as major part of their identity.

Prior Researches by Cropanzano et al., (1997) resulted a negative and study by Ferris and

Kacmar in 1992 found positive and finding of Cropanzano et al (1997) founds not a

significant relation between perception of politics and job involvement.

On the basis of above research evidence, following hypothesis for this research was

proposed

Hypothesis 7:

Perception of Organizational Politics is negatively related to Job Involvement

4.4.8 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND JOB

SATISFACTION

According to Robbins et al., in 2008 job satisfaction referred as “a positive feeling about

one’s job resulting from an evaluation of its characteristics”. More generally it is said by

Cranny, Smith and Stone, (1992), it also concerns to an job related emotional

attachement of employee .

According to numerous researchers like Lambert & Paoline, (2005), Lambert et al.,

(2005), Lambert et al., (2004) said that the decreased levels of job satisfaction is allied

with several workplace factors like role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, which

usually lead to medical problems Whereas according to other researchers including

Griffin, 2001; Lambert et al., 2002; Lambert, 2004; Lambert et al., 2004; Griffin,

75

Armstrong and Hepburn, 2005; Lambert and Paoline, 2005 and Lambert, Paoline &

Hogan, 2006 suggested that there are also other factors including job autonomy, job

variety, training, supervision quality and perceptions of rightful treatment, fairness in

decision making, process, training and pay or outcome satisfaction of employees in

organization have significant relationship with high level of job satisfaction.

Furthermore, it is said by Lambert, Hogan and Barton, (2003) that family conflict is

positively linked with job dissatisfaction and job stress is also found negatively related

with job satisfaction of employees.

Additionally, according to Lambert (2003) said that from the respective of

organizational justice the both distributive justice and procedural justice have been

revealed as positively related with job satisfaction of workers within organization.

Though many researchers including Mossholder, Bennett and Martin, (1998);

Wesolowski and Mossholder, (1997) have stated that procedural justice is positively

associated with job satisfaction whereas other like McFarlin and Sweeny, (1992) have

expressed that distributive justice is highly related with job satisfaction than procedural

justice which is emerged from two factor theory. The theory expressed that system

concerned outcomes are anticipated by procedural justice and person concerned

outcomes by distributive justice. Likewise, Masterson, Lewis et al. (2000) exhibited

procedural justice is expected higher level of job satisfaction than interactional justice,

however both dimension of justice has significant independent effects.

Further the Moorman, (1991) expressed the significance of organizational justice by

stating that if employees perceive that there is fairness in treatment within organization,

they will be more likely engaged in positive workplace attitude and have also positive

workplace outcomes. Therefore, extensive literature has been found on relationship of

procedural, distributive and interactional justice and number of organizational variables

which was explored by Alexander and ruderman (1987), Folger and Konovosky, (1989)

and Fryxell and Gordon, (1989), although there are several current studies are also

found.

As per new concepts of organizational justice, number of researchers proposed that,

perception of justice also rouse effectiveness in organization by getting influence on

level of job satisfaction and organizational commitment of employee within

organization. Furthermore, according to Fryxell and Gordon, (1989) there is significant

76

relationship between Organizational justice and Job Satisfaction. He also stated that

employees who are satisfied always exhibit higher level of performance within

organization. There are also other researchers including Lowe and Vodanovich, (1995)

examined the impact of dimensions of Organizational justice on employee’s job

satisfaction and organizational commitment within organization.

Greenberg, (1987) supported that any successful organization depends on performance

of employees which is directly affected by job satisfaction of employee at workplace

and their level of organizational commitment.

job satisfaction defined by current researchers like Weiss, (2002) as the “an evaluative

judgment people make about their job or job situation, job satisfaction has been

recognized as a crucial job attitude which is generally leading to main organizational

outcomes like productivity, absenteeism, and turnover (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky (1985),

Judge (2001), Locke (1976).

Prior studies including Mossholder et al. (1998) on organizational justice revealed that

distributive justice, refers to the perceived fairness in decision of outcomes (pay/salary),

and procedural justice, refers to the perceived fairness of the procedures and these both

types of justice have positive relationships with job satisfaction.

Moreover, in recent studies it has been focused that the perceptions of interpersonal

justice and its impact on job satisfaction. In 2001 the Colquitt et al. stated that the

interpersonal justice, refers to interpersonal respect and sensitivity when procedures

within organizations are to be performed, and informational justice, refers to the

truthfulness and accuracy of explanations which an individual receive about

organizational procedures, were linked to job satisfaction.

Numerous studies including Cropanzano et al., (1997), Folger and Konovsky (1989) and

McFarlin and Sweeney (1992) have been found about organizational with respect to

numerous out-comes of workplace including job satisfaction. Furthermore, the meta-

analytic evidence by Colquitt et al., (2001) clearly shows that there are positive work

outcomes at workplace resulting from perceptions of justice such as better job

satisfaction, higher level of organizational commitment, organizational citizenship, and

increased job performance.

A study by Cropanzano and Ambrose (2001) is also exposed that the Procedural and

distributive justice have been found to have a strong linkage with several organizational

77

outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

Distributive justice has got great attention due its positive association with needed job

outcomes. Some research exposed that distributive justice is significantly associated

with job satisfaction (Netemeyer et al., 1997) and pay satisfaction (Folger & Konovsky

1989). Others like (Organ & Ryan, 1995) and Scholl, Cooper, & McKenna (1987) have

found relationships between distributive justice and organizational citizenship

behaviors. In a context of customer service, Bettencourt and Brown in 1997 also

conclude a positive and significant association between pay level, distributive justice,

and job satisfaction

Though, Cohen-Charash et al. (2001) stated in their meta-analysis that general job

satisfaction of employees is significantly related to all three types of organizational

justice. Thus, in this study, a positive relationship is proposed between dimensions

justice and job satisfaction.

On the basis of above research evidence, following hypothesis for this research was

made:

Hypothesis 8:

Organizational Justice is positively related to Job Satisfaction

4.4.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Organizational commitment impacts on overall workplace attitude of employees

towards the organization (Colquittetal., 2001). Organizational commitment refers to the

degree in which employees identify with a specific organization and they are willing to

maintain relationship with an organization (Blau & Boal, 1987). There are three separate

dimensions to organizational commitment (Robbins et al.,2008) which are:

Affective commitment. Refer to an emotional attachment of employee with organization

and their belief in its values.

Continuance commitment. Refer to the perceived financial benefit of employee to stay

in an organization as compared to move another.

Normative commitment. Refers to an obligation of an employee to stay in organization

because of moral and ethical reasons.

78

However according to Martin and Bennett (1996), McFarlin and Sweeney (1992) the

distributive and procedural Justice both are predictor of work place attitudes at

workplace and prior researches by Martin and Benettt, 1996; McFarlin and Sweeney,

1992 also others have concluded that procedural justice can also be the reason of change

in organizational commitment. According to Tyler and colleagues, 1997 when

researchers try to differentiate between procedural and distributive justice they

concluded that procedural justice is more significantly related to commitment.

Whereas few studies like Martin and Bennett, 1996 don’t show any significant

relationship between distributive justice and commitment. Procedural Justice is also

indicated as strong relationship with organizational commitment other than interactional

justice (Masterson, Lewis, et al., 2000). While according to Greenberg, 1994 the

organizational commitment is more strongly linked with distributive justice rather than

procedural justice (Lowe & Vodanovich,1995).

According to Allen and Meyer, 1990 that most of the dimensions of organizational

commitment consider as affective commitment “the amount in which employees

recognized by organization and considers organization’s goals as their own goals”.

However as said by Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991 that the affective commitment

shows the organizational outcomes that is why it is usually linked to procedural justice

not to distributive justice. According to Cohen-Charash et al., 2001 also revealed that

affective commitment has strong relationship with procedural justice not shown any

relation with distributive justice or interactional justice although these two are strongly

related to commitment.

As stated by Konovsky and cropanzano, 1991 that beside affective commitment the

continuance commitment is also generally unrelated to justice. However, the Cohen-

Charash et al., (2001) concluded that continuance commitment is negatively related to

procedural and interactional justice. Therefore, when employees interpret fairness in

procedures at workplace then they perceive themselves as more committed to the

organization and therefore they are not intended to leave.

Cohen-Charash et al., (2001) stated that as per normative commitment concerned, when

people feel indulged with organization because of its fair procedures it will support the

social exchange view of organizational justice. Under the above evidences found in

79

literature an overall result demonstrate that organizational justice had a positive

relationship with organizational commitment and

Accordingly, the following hypothesis for this study was made:

Hypothesis 9:

Organizational Justice is positively related to Organizational Commitment

4.4.10 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTION OF POLITICS AND

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAIVOR

OCB is referring to the individual behavior which is not described in job description but

that actions are favorable for the organization defined by Organ, 1988. Again, Organ,

1990 defined OCBs as “behaviors that are discretionary and not explicitly rewarded but

that can help improve organizational functioning”.

In addition, according to Smith, Organ and Near, 1983; Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; Park

and Sims,1989 the organizational citizenship behaviors are those behaviors that go

beyond the stated roles including altruism, conscientiousness and courtesy and can be

get affected by perceived fairness of an event such as punishment. Prior research by

Moorman (1991); Moorman, Organ & Niehoff (1991); Niehoff & Moorman (1993);

Organ & Konovsky (1989); Podsakoff (1990) have found that fairness perceptions

within organization contribute to citizenship behavior. Organ (1990) also argued that

OCBs are determined largely by perceptions of fairness within organization.

However, the perception of employees about fairness is significantly and positively

related to OCBs. Furthermore, the extensive literature on punishment including Luthans

and Kreitner (1985); Skinner (1953) justified that punishment can result in

anticitizenship behaviors. These anticitizenship behaviors include counterproductive

work behaviors, avoid work, noncooperation, and conflict with authority, violence and

retaliation.

Research focusing on work place attitudes like Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Fryxell and

Gordon, 1989; Lind & Tyler, 1988 viewed procedural justice as influencing factor on

satisfaction with system and distributive justice perceived as influencing factor on

satisfaction with outcomes. The prior studies including Ball, Trevino and Sims, 1994,

80

Moorman, 1991 on OCBs support that OCBs have strong association with procedural

justice r a t h e r than distributive justice within organization. Accordingly, the

Moorman, (1991) expressed that perceived procedural justice is predictor of citizenship

behaviors while perceptions of distributive justice do not influence OCBs. Farh, Earley

and Lin, 1997 have also suggested that OCBs is strongly linked with procedural justice.

Although training programs held on procedural justice helps to improve OCB levels

among employees (Skarlicki & Latham, 1996).

Additionally, as a whole the OCBs were mostly studied in perspective to supervisors

other than organization. And it is anticipated that interpersonal and informational justice

are strongly related to OCB Masterson, Lewis, et al., (2000).

On the basis of above discussion, a positive and significant relationship between

perceived organizational justice and OCB is found so accordingly the following

hypothesis was proposed for the study:

Hypothesis 10:

Organizational Justice is positively related to Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

4.4.11 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND INTENT TO

TURNOVER

Poon (2004) expressed that Intent to quit or turnover denotes cognitive thought of

employee for leaving the job. As define by Robbins et al., 2008 turnover is “voluntary

and involuntary permanent withdrawal from an organization”.

The scholars like Farrell and Rusbult, 1992 have suggested that leaving or quitting the

job can be in two conditions like not leaving existing job but applied for transfer within

and outside the organization and physiological withdrawing means quitting for exiting

job and searching for new job.

It is claimed by Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991; Daly and Geyer, 1994 that both

distributive and procedural justice dimensions of justice are examined as directly related

to turnover intentions and also actual turnover. Since these both types mean there are

fair distribution process and procedures for outcome has been applied so it helps to

reduce turnover inspiration. Although Cohen-Charash et al., 2001 in their meta-analysis

study found the similar finding.

81

Studies like Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991; Dailey and Kirk, 1992; Tyler and

Degoey, 1995 investigated that there a negative correlation between procedural justice

and turnover intentions. However, there are also some evidences like Bies and Shapiro,

1987,Hendrix et al., 1999 which shows that distributive justice related to turnover

intentions.

Consequently, Cohen-Charash et al., 2001 in their meta-analysis study recommended

that further research should be carried out to analyze the relationship between justice

perceptions on turnover. This finding is consistent with research of Lambart etal., 2010

they also conclude that distributive justice and procedural justice have a significant

relationship with intention of employees to turnover.

According this study also examined direct associations between justice types and

turnover intentions. On the basis of following research evidence, following hypothesis

for this research was made:

Hypothesis 11:

Organizational Justice is negatively related to Turnover Intensions

4.4.12 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND JOB-RELATED

BURNOUT

There are number of studies which have focused on the effects of organizational justice.

The various factors including the performance of the organization, effectiveness of

organization, organizational success, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and

burnout Iqbal et al., (2012). One of the factor among them is burnout which is

consequently affected by organizational justice is "burnout" and some have tried

including Eric et al., (2010) to have a new definition of burnout and tried to explore its

linkages with organizational justice.

Employees must know that what burnout does, by burnout negative attitudes and can be

emerged, it can lead destruction of personality, and it can negatively affect mental

fatigue and reason of de motivation towards their job.

A study carried out by Ghafuri, (2008) also included that there is a significant positive

correlation among organizational justice and the various fields of organizational

commitment and job satisfaction and burnout.

82

Furthermore, the studies by Ghafuri (2008) and Hanna et al. (2009) were conducted to

explore the relationship between organizational justice and burnout in employees at

workplace. The research concluded a negative significant relationship between

organizational justice and burnout. This finding is consistent with research of Neami &

Shokrkon, (2004) they argued that perception of justice is one of the factors affecting

the employee’s burnout.

Ivone & Helenides (2009) carried out research on 233 university professors and found

that organizational justice with a mediating role of commitment can predict the burnout.

Liljegren & Ekberg, (2009) conducted research on 428 Swedish police officers and

found a significant and negative relationship between organizational justice and burnout.

Therefore, it is also important for organization to know how people sense justice in their

organizations and how they react to the perception of justice or injustice within

organization. Accordingly, our question revolve around that could an organization

eliminate or reduce staff burnout by make them sure about presence of farness/ justice

within organization justice? This study has investigated the relationship between

organizational justice and burnout.

Hence on the basis of above research evidence, following hypothesis for this research

was made:

Hypothesis 12:

Organizational Justice is negatively related to Job Related Burnout

4.4.13 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND JOB

INVOLVEMENT

As said by Balachandran and Gowthami, (2016) that in the field of an organization, job

involvement taking concentration as very important factor. Having same argument by

Mohsan, Nawaz, Khan, Shaukat and Aslam, (2011) stated that involvement is very

significant predictors for organizational efficiency. They argued that Employees’

efficiency is mainly relay on their involvement towards organization goals.

Kim and Mauborgne (1998) concluded that when employees judge justice and fairness

in the process of decision making process their job involvement increases significantly.

In addition, various scholars investigated the connection between justice types and job

83

involvement like Ahmadi, (2011) examined a positive association of distributive and

procedural justice with job involvement.

Similarly Oparaugo, (2002) found that fair organizational policies encourage

organizational justice and job involvement. And also, a study conducted by Shahidul,

(2011) from Ohio State University, concluded that there is positive impact of procedural

and distributive justice on employee’s job involvement.

Likewise, Kim, (2009) conclude that if employees are treated fairly by their

organizations, they will be more committed, greatly involved with their job. And feel

exhausted judge unfairness/ injustice. According to Leiter & Maslach, (2009) fair

treatment encourage employees to get more involved with their job to promote

organizational goals. Freyedon, (2012) also have same finding. Therefore, job

involvement considers as significant relationship with organizational justice.

Accordingly, on the basis of following research evidence, following hypothesis for

this research was made:

Hypothesis 13:

Organizational Justice is positively related to Job Involvement

84

4.5 UNDERPINNING THEORY

4.5.1 SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY

Gouldner (1960) paved the foundation of social exchange theory by providing a healthy

discussion on reciprocity; under which it was emphasized that individuals perceptions

of self-interest drive them hence creating reciprocity. On the similar lines, Blau, (1964)

argued that this perception affects relationships and employees feel obligated to respond

in the similar ways. The same idea was later endorsed by Eisenberger et al. (1986)

stating that the social exchange creates and enhances bond among coworkers and peers,

and among employees and organizations. Therefore, Masterson et al. 2000 reported that

the social exchange theory has been widely used as a underlying framework to study and

explain attitudes and behaviors with respect to organizational settings. Therefore, the

present study has relied largely on the social exchange theory claiming that employee

perceptions of power and politics leads them to for job related attitudes (work outcomes)

both positive and negative. Additionally, literature has incited that a social exchange

could be possible by creating a perception of organizational justice (Moorman et al.

1998; Rupp and Cropanzano 2002; Aryee et al., 2004; Rupp and Cropanzano, 2002).

Hence, the current study has proposed the mediating effect of organizational justice on

the relationship between perceptions of organizational power and politics and job related

outcomes. Therefore, the social exchange theory has been used as an underpinning

theory for the present study.

85

CHAPTER 5

PILOT STUDY

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The word 'pilot studies' means small version of a full-scale study sometimes it is

called 'feasibility' and also called as pre-testing of specific research instrument

like questionnaire or other quantitative research instrument. For good research

design Pilot study is very crucial element.

However, after carried out pilot study we cannot guarantee the success of full scale

study but by conducting this, it will increase the chances of success.

As suggested by sunders et al., (2007) for this research, pilot study has been

conducted for purifying our research instrument.

According to Bell (2005) pilot study is very essential to measurement some basic

factors which are include:

• How much time researcher need to complete survey.

• Which instructions should be cleared to respondent before filling

questionnaires?

• By piloting researcher can enable to identify which questions are not clear

or ambiguous to respondents.

• Researcher can also identify that which questions make respondents uneasy

to answer.

• Is there need of comment box if respondent want to give open ended

answers.

5.2 PILOT STUDY

According to Polit et al., (2001) the word pilot study can also have called as

feasibility study which is mini version or trial version of full scale study, which

86

carried out before major study. On the other hand, Baker (1994) stated that a pilot

study is also referred as pre-testing or trying out a Specific research questionnaire.

One of the major benefit of carrying out pilot study is that it gives list of

precautions for major scale study, it also help to find out whether the proposed

questionnaires or method of research is appropriate for this particular study or not.

As said suggested by De Vaus (1993) you should not take risk on your research

and conduct pilot study first. There are some basic and essential reasons that why

should pilot study carried out, are given below.

• Ensure the accuracy of research instruments.

• Measuring the viability of main study.

• Determining the research protocols either these protocols are workable or

not?

• Assessing that sampling techniques which adopt for this study are adequate

or not?

• Estimating that sample size which were determined, are accurate.

• Gathering initial data.

• Estimating the cost (finance) of study.

• Determining proposed data analysis techniques.

• Developing a research hypotheses and research questions.

• Ensure that the main study is worth full.

Pilot studies can be used in both quantitative and qualitative research before the

main study is conducted. In quantitative the questionnaire means the wording of

questions and the order of the questions, scale used questions, can be piloted.

A pilot study could be carried out to test the research process including the ways

of distributing and collecting the questionnaires.

By conducting Pilot studies help researcher to identify potential issues in research

procedures. For example, in a Scottish study of maternity care the pi lot study of

87

that research showed that the proposed means of distributing the questionnaires

would not be continue for main study Van Teijlingen et al., (2001).

Other problems including poor recording and response rates can also be identified.

During pilot study a questionnaire should be filled out by small group of

respondents, who are as similar as possible to the target population. Pilot studies

can also reveal some local social and political issues which may influence the

research process.

5.3 PROBLEMS OF PILOT STUDIES

Despite of a lot of benefits of pilot studies there may also have some limitations

like the possibility of making incorrect estimation on the basis of data receive from

piloting, problems regarding contamination and related to funding. Some of other

problems are discussed here. After successfully finishing pilot study doesn’t

ensure the success of main study also but it increases the likelihood. Because the

findings and results of piloting can be different because of small sample size of

respondent, we can’t perform many statistical tests with small size of population.

So, results cannot be finalized until we conduct main study with large population

of respondents. Another common issue arises that is whether include those

participate who respond for pilot study in the main study or not. The matter of

concern is that they have already give response so may be in main study they may

respond differently from those who didn’t response before. The significance of

resources is also a major Problem may arise during pilot study. So, it will become

easy for researcher to estimate total cost required for main study.

88

5.4 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Figure 8: Types Of Reliability And Validity

5.4.1 RELIABILITY

In any research 'Reliability' gives an overall accurate result of measurement. Thus,

it can also be judge by 'repeatability' and 'consistency'. There are Four types of

‘Reliability’ set in social science research and those are as follows:

In summary:

Inter-rater: Performing Same Test but Different People.

Test-retest: Having same people for Different Times (repeat).

Parallel-forms: Different people, Time Same but Test will different.

Internal consistency: Having Same Construct but Different questions.

Reliability of the data shows the credibility of the data which is collected by

researcher. The reliability means accuracy of measurement and procedure of

research process. Like if the same process will be done again, the results must be

same, that is called consistency and repeatability which describe reliability.

As said by Yin, (1994) the amount by which research has capability to have

consistency shows the reliability of research. If method of data collection

concludes same finding as finding of other research within same domain then it

determines the reliability of data.

Reliability

Test-Retest

Inter-Rater

Parallel-Forms

Internal Consistency

Criterion Validity

Face Validity

Construct Validity

Validity

Construct Validity

89

Reliability can be affected by some factors including subject error, biasness in

measurement, observer error and deliberate misrepresentation.

For this study positivists paradigm of research was used which considered as very

efficient method of data collection Robson, (1993). A questionnaire instrument

was used by researcher to collect data from public sector universities of Sindh

province. Teaching faculty and administration was used as sample population.

Details of research and researchers along with contact number and email address

of researcher was mentioned in covering letter which was assigned by supervisors.

It also ensured in the covering letter that their data will be strictly confidential.

And it was also advised to don’t mention their names; it could be a reason of

biasness in answer.

The data collected through survey questionnaire and it did not face any difficulties

of observer error. As said by Hussey and Hussey, (1997) internal consistency

method is also used measure the reliability of survey items. For this study

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) was used to determ ine internal reliability.

5.4.2 VALIDITY

Broadly Validity shows how good our research is. Generally, Validity used for

both quantitative and qualitative research method. Validity of data means that

results which derived from our data is demonstrating those facts for which we are

claiming to measure. To research validity is one of the major concerns. According

to Seliger & Shohamy, (1989, 1995) "Any research can be affected by different

kinds of factors which, while extraneous to the concerns of the research, can

invalidate the findings".

A primary responsibility of every good researcher is to control all possible factors

that threaten the research's validity.

According to Devllis, (1992) development of scale shows the degree to which

accurately calculate the concept which is going to investigate or the limit to which

the latent construct is the underlying cause of item co-variation. There are four

types of validity are frequently use in social sciences research and those are as

follows:

90

1. Face validity

As stated by Collis and Hussey, (2009) the most frequent and common type to

check validity is face validity. Simply by checking face validity of scale

researchers or experts make sure that whether the tests and measures taken by

researcher are those which they want to measure or not. This is logical test of

validity.

2. Content validity

Content validity refers that the entire content of the construct is represented in the

test we compare the content of the construct with the domain of the study. This is

also a logical test, not an empirical one. Example, if we want to measure

perception of organizational politics then all questions (contents) of organizational

politics construct should be represents organizational politics in it rather than other

like Satisfaction or Commitment.

3. Criterion validity

According to Devellis, (1991) Criterion validity is comparison between score

obtains from scale and some already set standard of sores. “The extent to which a

specific set of items replicates to a content domain.” Criterion validity is also

called predictive validity. This is empirical test.

4. Construct validity

Construct validity defines how sound a test or experiment measures are as it is

supposed to. Like a construct is designing to measure turnover then it must

measure particularly turnover not absenteeism or any other construct. It is also

empirical test.

For this study the researcher carried out the pilot study first in order to validate

the scale and also make amendments regarding language, layout and other validity

problems frequently examined by research experts.

91

5.5 FULL-SCALE STUDY

After carried out pilot study, by which the reliability and validity of the research

questionnaire was checked and also ensured that the instrument was unambiguous the

researcher conducted full scale study. The data collected for full -scale study from

public sector universities of sindh Province in Pakistan. The detail of targeted

sample population and data analysis is discussed in the next section.

5.6 TARGETED AREA AND SAMPLE IN PILOTING

For conducting pilot study data was collected from Public sector universities of

sindh Province including Mehran university of Information and Technology,

Sindh Agriculture University and University of Sindh. 200 questionnaires were

distributed from which 175 questionnaires were received and 150 were useable for

further analysis.

5.7 DATA ENTRY PLAN

For this study strategy of data entry was based on different steps like coding all

items of each construct, cleaning data like missing data/ incomplete data then entry

of data in computer. Data cleaning also called to verifying data by double-checking

to ensure that all data is correctly transferred to computer.

According to Diamantopoulos and Schlegelmilch, (1997) Coding of data means to

shift data from questionnaire in the form of numbers and therefore it is called

transformation of data information into readable format of computer.

In first step id number given to each questionnaire then because if any data is

missed, it is easy to locate it by its id number. Data was directly input to SSPS

software however it can easily be saved as .csv (comma separated value) file to

use data in excel as needed.

So, in the step of recording the data was posted from questionnaire to computer

for the mean of analysis.

92

5.8 METHOD FOLLOWED IN PILOT STUDY

The Pilot study was conducted during the period of March and April 2016. As

snowball sampling technique were used in this study so the questionnaires were

distributed among respondents and other respondents were those, who were

referred by those respondents who were randomly selected and some participants

were faculty members, and some were from administration of universities e.g.

University of Sindh Jamshoro, Sindh Agriculture University Tando Jam and

Mehran University of Information and Technology Jamshoro.

Questionnaires were distributed personally at their department and also given them

time as long they need. A consent letter was also attached from supervisors in

which all detail of researcher and research were mentioned.

SPSS version 22.0 was to analysis of data which received from piloting. Some

basic tests were performed like descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation

and frequencies).

As said by Sekaran, (2010) The main purpose of piloting was to assess the

purification of questionnaire instrument by verifying wording of all items of each

variable, arrangement of questions, rate of response by participant, layout of

questionnaire, questionnaire filling time and process of analysis.

Furthermore, it is said by Sekaran, (2010) and Pallant, (2006) that the aim of pilot

study is to evaluating the reliability (Cronbach’s α) and content validity to confirm

that the overall questions and scale of questions were accurate. The ‘face validity’

of questionnaire instrument were examined and reviewed by departmental field

experts who were Professors, Associate and Assistant Professors before

conducting pilot study. To simplifying the language and a minor alteration in

vocabulary/language was suggested by those experts, which were implemented as

per instruction. In addition, inter-item correlation test was also performed to

analyze that scale chosen for this study has proper harmony with the data

(Creswell, 2003).

93

5.9 OUTCOME OF PILOT STUDY

The process of piloting took about a month to complete. Total numbers of

questions were 87 using 7-point Likert-type scale pointing from 1 = strongly

disagree to 7 = strongly agree and maximum time for completing questionnaire

was mentioned 30mins on covering letter. However average respondents took

approximately 15-20mins for finishing. Respondent rate was 75%.

5.10 DETAILS OF PILOT STUDY

The demographic information of respondents who filled questionnaires during

pilot study are discussed below.

Information shows that male respondents were more than female with the

percentage of 77.3%. Single respondents were more than married respondents with

the rate of 68.7%.Majority of participants were between the age 20-29.Most of

them were master degree holders having experience of 10-20 years. Detailed

showed in (table.)

Demographics Categories Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 116 77.3

Female 34 22.7

Marital Status Married 47 31.3

Single 103 68.7

Age 20 to 29 76 50.7

30 to 39 51 34.0

Table 4: Demographic Statistics of Piloting

94

40 to 49 17 11.3

50 above 6 4.0

Education Bachelor Degree 26 17.3

Master Degree 83 55.3

MPhil/PhD 41 27.3

Experience Less 1 year 10 6.7

10-20 years 111 74.0

21-30 years 8 5.3

31-40 years 6 4.0

41-above 15 10.0

Occupation Administration 20 13.3

Faculty 130 86.7

5.11 RELIABILITY STATISTICS DURING PILOT STUDY

5.11.1 WHAT IS CRONBACH ALPHA

In social sciences and organizational sciences cronbach’s alpha reliability is extensively

used as reliability test. Lee Cronbach was the person who invented this test in year of

1951.

His test used to measure internal consistency of scale. It is determined between

the number of 0-1. Internal consistency explains that at what extent the items of

scale are inter related with each other. As (Jose M. Cortina, 1993) has written in

his paper that no doubt Cronbach’s alpha is one of the most significant and

95

insidious statistical test in research. He also mentioned about his review in Social

Sciences Citations Index the literature from 1966 to 1990 exposed that Cronbach's

(1951) article has been cited around 60 times per year and in total 278 different

journals. Hence there is likelihood of increase in figures more than twice till now.

Cronbach’s Alpha Formula

The formula of Cronbach’s Alpha is α = N*C/v + (N-1) * C

Where:

N= No of items

c̄=Average covariance b/w item-pairs

v̄ = Average variance

Though it is good we should learn formulas but actually we don’t do these statistics

manually, nowadays there are some statistical software are available like SPSS for

performing such tests.

Cronbach’s Alpha Internal

Consistency

More than 0.9 Excellent

Between 0.8 and 0.9 Good

Between 0.7 and 0.8 Acceptable

Between 0.6 and 0.7 Questionable

Between 0.5 and 0.6 Poor

Less than 5 Unacceptable

Broadly Cronbach’s alpha score more than 0.7 is acceptable. But 0.8 consider as

a good score value.

5.11.2 CRONBACH’S ALPHA RELIABILITY OF PILOT STUDY

All construct of this study had Cronbach’s Alpha (α) Reliability above 0.7 which

demonstrate that constructs used in study has fulfilled reliability condition. Alpha

Cronbach (α) reliability of all constructs was measured with SPSS version 220.

Table 5: Cronbach’s Alpha

96

Construct Cronbach’s

Alpha

Procedural Justice .827

Distributive Justice .938

Interpersonal Justice .905

Informational Justice .791

Organizational Citizenship

Behavior

.817

Perception of Politics .716

Job Involvement .737

Turnover Intention .773

Job Satisfaction .818

Organizational Commitment .860

Work Related Burnout .744

Overall .890

5.12 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

There are a lot of measurements has been performed during this research, for

collection of data it has been measured a large group of people; in this case,

descriptive statistics has been used to simplify extensive data in a sensible way.

Descriptive statistics are statistics which is used to comprise large data in to simple

form. It quantitatively explains or precise collection of information in a

manageable form. Descriptive statistics are used to determine the basic

characteristics of the data in a research. With the help of descriptive statistics, we

represent simple summaries about the large sample and complex measures by

using tables and graphs. Simply with the use of it we can describe what data shows

e.g. measurements, figures. Descriptive statistic shrinks large amount of data into

a smallest summary.

For this chapter the descriptive analysis of (data received from piloting) all

constructs are explained in tables. In tables of descriptive analysis of each

construct the value of Mean, standard deviation and Corrected item total

correlation of each item is given. 7-point Likert-type of scale ranging from

strongly disagrees to strongly agree were used to record answers. Total number of

construct is 11.

Table 6: Cronbach’s Alpha Of Constructs In Piloting

97

5.12.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF PERCEPTION OF POLITICS (POP)

As 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagrees to strongly agree were

used to record answers so mean value of each item should be more than 3.5.

Descriptive Statistics of Perception of Politics (POP) shows that means value of

all items of this construct is more than 3.5 so these all items are acceptable.

The second column shows the value of standard deviation. In next column there

are corrected item total correlations. This shows correlation between items. If the

correlation is low for an item, this means the item isn't really measuring the same

thing that we trying to measure.

According to Churchill, G.A., (1979) an item-total correlation test is performed to

check if any item in the construct having low value among others, then it means,

it should be discarded. This analysis is performed to purifying the items by

removing ‘garbage’ items. After purifying items further analysis can be perform.

The standard value for corrected item total correlation is must be above 0.19.

However most of items of this construct having value above cut-off value except

highlighted one and will be deleted for further analysis. Likewise, the values of

mean, standard deviation and corrected item total correlation of all items of each

construct including Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice, Interpersonal Justice,

Informational Justice, Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), Job

Involvement, Job Involvement, Organizational Commitment, Turnover Intension,

Descriptive Statistics of Work Related Burnout have been giving in tables

respectively.

Description is given below in Table:

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics of Perception of Politics (POP) Code M Std. Deviation Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

OP1 4.77 1.788

.453

OP2 4.18 1.687 .083

OP3 3.61 1.666 .081

OP4 4.73 1.722

.279

98

5.12.2DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE

Seven items including PJ1, PJ2, PJ3, PJ4, PJ5, PJ6, and PJ7 were used to measure

construct of procedural justice. The Mean, Standard Deviation and Corrected Item-

Total Correlation of each item of this construct have been given in table .

OP5 4.05 1.800

.378

OP6 5.11 1.765

.472

OP7 4.73 1.622

.604

OP8 4.97 1.532

.391

OP9 5.02 1.919

.316

OP10 4.95 1.345

.485

OP11 4.31 1.385

.303

OP12 5.29 1.624

.426

OP13 4.04 2.036

.318

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics of Procedural Justice

Code M Std. Deviation Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

PJ1 4.89 1.947

.660

PJ2 3.83 1.824

.247

PJ3 5.29 1.632

.563

PJ4 5.27 1.690

.601

PJ5 5.07 1.979

.602

PJ6 4.93 2.027

.697

PJ7 4.91 1.915

.652

99

5.12.3DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

Four items (DJ1, DJ2, DJ3, DJ4) were used to measure construct of distributive

justice. The Mean, Standard Deviation and Corrected Item-Total Correlation of

each item of this

construct is given in table.

5.12.4DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE

Four items including IntPJ1, IntPJ2, IntPJ3, and IntPJ4 were used to measure

construct of interpersonal justice. The Mean, Standard Deviation and Corrected

Item-Total Correlation of each item of this construct have been given in table.

Code M Std. Deviation Corrected Item-Total

Correlation

IntPJ1 4.43 1.964

.758

IntPJ2 4.57 1.981

.777

IntPJ3 4.67 2.084

.871

IntPJ4 4.77 2.004

.741

5.12.5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE

Five items including InfoJ1, InfoJ2, InfoJ3, InfoJ4, and InfoJ5 were used to

measure construct of informational justice. The Mean, Standard Deviation and

Table 9: Descriptive Statistics of Distributive Justice


Correlation

DJ1 4.61 1.972

.857

DJ2 4.47 2.116

.851

DJ3 4.35 2.007

.856

DJ4 4.21 2.272

.854

Table 10: Descriptive Statistics of Interpersonal Justice

100

Corrected Item-Total Correlation of each item of this construct have been given in

table.


Correlation

InfoJ1 4.77 1.939

.614

InfoJ2 4.79 1.819

.615

InfoJ3 4.65 1.761

.591

InfoJ4 4.05 1.981

.615

InfoJ5 4.57 1.454

.422

5.12.6 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF TURNOVER INTENSION

Three items including TI1, TI2 and TI3 were used to measure construct of

Turnover Intension. The Mean, Standard Deviation and Corrected Item-Total

Correlation of each item of this construct have been given in table.

5.12.7DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

(OCB)

Fifteen items including OCB1, OCB2, OCB3, OCB4, OCB5, OCB6, OCB7,

OCB8, OCB9, OCB10, OCB11, OCB12, OCB13, OCB14, and OCB15 were used

to measure construct of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The Mean, Standard

Table 11: Descriptive Statistics of Informational Justice

Table12:Descriptive Statistics of Turnover Intension


Total Correlation

TI1 4.15 .424 .826

TI2 3.81 .596 .690

TI3 4.64 .932 .359

101

Deviation and Corrected Item-Total Correlation of each item of this construct have

been given in table.

5.12.8DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF JOB INVOLVEMENT

Seven items including JI1, JI2, JI3, JI4, JI5, and JI6 were used to measure

construct of Job Involvement. The Mean, Standard Deviation and Corrected Item-

Total Correlation of each item of this construct has been given in table.

Table13 Descriptive Statistics of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)


Total Correlation

OCB1 5.54 1.473

.504

OCB2 5.37 1.954

.376

OCB3 5.35 1.589

.624

OCB4 5.13 1.842

.536

OCB5 5.26 1.743

.659

OCB6 5.21 1.844

.521

OCB7 5.26 1.743

.438

OCB8 5.77 1.614

.439

OCB9 5.15 1.998

.410

OCB10 5.17 1.873

.391

OCB11 5.28 1.738

.508

OCB12 3.65 2.174

.378

OCB13 3.27

1.985

0.160

OCB14 5.32 1.804

.351

OCB15 5.05 1.862

.294

Table 13: Descriptive Statistics of Job Involvement

102


Correlation

JI1 5.30 1.892

.235

JI2 4.41 1.703

.237

JI3 4.83 2.106

.402

JI4 4.95 1.815

.570

JI5 5.17 1.662

.585

JI6 4.79 1.971

.572

JI7 4.25 1.970 .049

JI8 4.97 1.378

.557

JI9 5.01 1.535

.536

JI10 5.54 1.531

.532

5.12.12 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF JOB SATISFACTION

Ten items including JS1, JS2, JS3, JS4, JS5, JS6, JS7, JS8, JS9, and JS10 were

used to measure construct of Job Satisfaction. The Mean, Standard Deviation and

Corrected Item-Total Correlation of each item of this construct has been given in

table.

Code M Corrected Item-Total

Correlation

Std. Deviation

JS1 4.83 .501 1.704

JS2 4.63 .601 1.884

JS3 4.95 .595 1.826

JS4 5.09 .589 1.875

JS5 5.19 .449 1.473

JS6 4.89 .495 1.973

Table 14: Descriptive Statistics of Job Satisfaction

103

JS7 5.33 .387 1.481

JS8 4.57 .366 1.815

JS9 5.48 .385 1.355

JS10 5.24 .619 1.721

5.12. 13 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Nine items including OC1, OC2, OC3, OC4, OC5, OC6, OC7, OC8, and OC9 were

used to measure construct of Organizational Commitment. The Mean, Standard




Correlation

Std. Deviation

OC1 5.54 .497 1.561

OC2 5.17 .534 1.902

OC3 5.29 .603 1.829

OC4 4.95 .620 1.674

OC5 5.66 .578 1.907

OC6 5.07 .672 1.843

OC7 5.45 .644 1.570

OC8 5.44 .622 1.815

OC9 5.55 .512 1.689

5.12.14 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF WORK RELATED BURNOUT

Seven items including WRB1, WRB2, WRB3, WRB4, WRB5, WRB6, and WRB7

were used to measure construct of Work Related Burnout. The Mean, Standard



Table 15: Descriptive Statistics of Organizational Commitment

104


Correlation

Std. Deviation

WRB1 3.75 .374 .734

WRB2 3.99 .582 .686

WRB3 3.01

.572 .689

WRB4 3.74 .528 .698

WRB5 3.20

.511 .702

WRB6 3.05

.473 .710

WRB7 5.20 .213 .768

5.13 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION

Ethical issues in research are very sensitive issue especially when humans are

involved. As said by Cavan, (1977) ethics is referred as “a matter of principled

sensitivity to the rights of others’ and that ‘while truth is good, respect for human

dignity is better. “An ethical consideration should be following throughout

research process.

Therefore, in this research all ethical requirements are taken in to account in entire

process of research especially during data collection. A cover letter was attached

with all questionnaires in which researcher mentioned very clearly that data

provided by the respondent will be completely confidential in the wake of ethical

consideration of research polices.

It was requested to participants with permission of their head of department or

chairperson to take part in filling questionnaire by their own will and no one was

forced to do so. However, they could quit if they were not interested. Keeping

ethical research codes, it was clearly instructed for not mentioning their name or

any other type of identity symbol in order to avoid any kind of association with

the respondent.

Table 16: Descriptive Statistics of Work Related Burnout

105

The data was also encoded in such a way to ensure the confidentiality and secrecy

of the research process of this study. In addition, there was also a consent form

was attached with questionnaires in which details of study were explained

including the title of the research, name of researcher and university name of

researcher, purpose of the research, name and contact details of supervisors.

5.14 CONCLUSION

As said by Prescott and Soeken, (1989) that pilot studies are prone to be

"underdiscussed, underused and underreported".

Lindquist (1991), Muoio et al (1995) and van Teijlingen et al. (2001) stated that

in the literature of research the complete reports of piloting are hardly available

and if they are available the scholars usually discusses about only research

techniques and tools.

Although it is argued that it is ethical obligation of researchers to make best use

of their experiences (issues, changes) during research also the step of piloting. No

double well design pilot studies can reveal good research process and ultimately

good results. So supervisor should motivate their scholars to mention detailed full

report of pilot study and also make changing in main study if needed.

For this study a pilot study was conducted to measure the reliability and validity

of the questionnaire and to assess and carried out all possible to complete all

condition of validity and reliability. Then a full-scale survey was also conducted

from the proposed sample. In this chapter all practical dimensions were fulfilled

including sampling, data collection, measurement scales and data analysis

procedures were assessed. For the process of data analysis all data that was

collected through piloting was recorded in computer in statistical Package for

social sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 and performed some basic tests to check the

reliability and validity.

106

CHAPTER 6

MAIN STUDY FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

A number of statistical approaches are used in this study for obtaining the

objectives and understanding the relationship between independent variables and

dependent variable which were proposed.

In this chapter researcher revealed the relationship between independent variables

and dependent variable. So, the purpose of verifying the relationship between

variables the quantitative approach was used, researcher used questionnaire

instrument to collect data from targeted sample. The sample targeted for this study

was University’s Teaching Faculty and Administration.

In short, this chapter provides full details about procedures of data analysis which

was applied to draw the results. The initial test has been conducted through

Statistical package for Social Science (SPSS) version 22.0. And for confirmatory

analysis the Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) the Partial Least Square Method

used in software SmartPLS.

In this chapter there are content including the Steps of research engagement plan,

nature of data analysis, data screening, missing data assessment, outlier detection,

exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis using structural

equation modelling method in SmartPLS software.

6.2 RESEARCH ENGAGEMENT PLAN

For this study the main data collection process was carried out during August 2016

to November 2016. This process was time taken due to busy routine of

respondents’. Survey Questionnaire were distributed among 500 Teaching Faculty

and Administrations of Universities. There was other method were also used like

contact number, email, personally visit and by posting questionnaire to given

addresses. It is due to the core determination of researcher and with hard core

struggle the researcher is able to receive 350 questioners from respondents from

107

different universities. The respond rate is 70% this is quite enough to carry out

final analysis of this study.

For this study all participants were given plenty of time to respond without any

unnecessary pressure to get unbiased response.

6.3 NATURE OF STUDY DATA ANALYSIS

For this study to conclude descriptive statistics the statistical software SPSS was

used. The Pearson’s correlation of Dependent variable with independent variables,

and finally exploratory factor analysis test were conducted. In final stage the

confirmatory analysis was conducted by structural equation modelling (SEM).For

Structural equation modelling technique the partial least square method smart PLS

software was used to assess the measurement model and path model of this

6.4 DATA EXAMINATION AND SCREENING BEFORE THE ANALYSIS

Before further analysis researcher has to be ensure that data is clean and ready for

onwards statistical tests. This process is called as Data screening. In order to make

sure that data is useable, reliable, and valid for testing causal theory data must be

screened.

According to Pallant, (2006) in data screening process the initial action is to verify

that the data is accurate and error free. In this process researcher has to check

errors like to check score of all variables that are not up to standard value. Next

step is to detect errors in data file and analyze where error has arisen in data file,

and final step is to rectify errors in the data.

As said by Hair et al, (2006) indeed, in order to purify the data there must be need

of data screening to reveal the real data

6.4.1 MISSING DATA

In social sciences research, the problem of missing data is very common

phenomena that researcher face during analysis of data. According to Hair et al.,

2006 the common happening during data accumulation is that respondents fail to

108

give all information due to number of reasons including their busy routine, number

of questions in survey instrument, sometime the personal reasons of respondents

and also other reasons. The level and importance of missing data depend upon its

pattern and quantity in research.

As said by Stevens, (1992), Norusis, (1995) that the various methods/ways are

used to find of missing data in the realm of social sciences like conducting mean

scores on the variance or deleting those samples which are answered by

respondents.

However according to Tabachnick and Fidell, (2007) if the rate of missing data is

less e.g approximately around 5% or less than it than it may consider as minor

issue and can be resolve by methods which given above.

In this study missing data were less than 5% and used SPSS software to deal with

missing data problem.

6.4.2 OUTLIERS

Outlier is score of data which observed as having abnormal distance than others.

As said by Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007 that outliers can be analyzed with extreme

values of statistical scores on variables and can reason of difference in results.

It is stated by Hair et al, 2006 usually outlier can be identified by checking high

or low value of variables which make observation unusually different from the rest

of other.

Grubbs, (1969) expressed that an outlier may be due to inconsistency in the

measurement or also can be due to experimental error and later there is possibility

to exclude from the data. However, during the process of data entry there are

chances of procedural error like mistake in coding or wrong data entry due to work.

6.4.2.1 OUTLIER DETECTION METHODS

There are three methods have been suggested by using Statistical package for

social sciences (SPSS) to identifying outliers from research data. Those three

methods are

109

a. Univariate detection

b. Bivariate detection

c. Multivariate detection

a. Univariate outlier Detection

A univariate outlier is a point of data that show an extreme value on one variable

that can be detected by analyzing the distribution of observation of each variable.

Therefore during statistical analyses this type of outlier can influence on results.

According to Hair et al, (2006) in univariate detection approach mainly concern to set

out the threshold of outliers’ designation.

b. Bivariate Outlier Detection

Bivariate outliers can be sought out by putting a pair of variables together in scatter

plot and if any of those cases will show abnormal range of the other observations

will be detected out of points than others. According to Hair et al,in 2006 when

we want to detect particular relationship between Independent variable and

dependent variable then bivariate outliers method is very useful but problem arise

when we apply large amount of variable

c. Multivariate outlier Detection

On other hand a multivariate outlier is a combination of abnormal scores on

two or more variables. Variable are multidimensional in nature of variables the

multivariate analyzing technique is found as very authentic tool. The

Mahalanbosis D2 test is used to analyze each variable. According to Hair et al in

2006 & Field, (2006) the standard value for small sample size is more can exceeds

2.5 and for large sample size this value can be 3 or 4 to detect possible outliers in

data set. As said by Hair et al., (2006) & Field and Hole, (2003) the presence of

outlier cannot crate problem however the mean value and standard deviation can

be affected by biasness due its existence.

The Mahalanobis distance method used to identifying the outliers in data set of

this research. Mahalanobis has vale of significance level to analyze outlier in set

110

of data, depend on the number of dependent value. According to the formula found

in SPSS Survival Manual (Pallant, 2005), the significance value for of this study

for dependent variables and number of independent variable is.

6.5NORMALITY

Normality described as the amount in which the distribution of sample data

regarded as normal distribution. In multivariate analysis the normality is

considered as basic assumption. In other words, we can say Normality demonstrate

the shape of data distribution from an individual metric variable and its association

to normal distribution.

The statistical tests will be invalid when data distribution is not normal. Therefore,

it is said by Hair et al., (2006) the normality is needed to be validating the

statistical significance of output that is generated. According to Tabachnick &

Field, (2007) and Hair et al., (2006) the by statistical methods can be used to assess

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

JI 400 100.0% 0 0.0% 400 100.0%

WRB 400 100.0% 0 0.0% 400 100.0%

OP 400 100.0% 0 0.0% 400 100.0%

JS 400 100.0% 0 0.0% 400 100.0%

OCB 400 100.0% 0 0.0% 400 100.0%

TI 400 100.0% 0 0.0% 400 100.0%

OJ 400 100.0% 0 0.0% 400 100.0%

OC 400 100.0% 0 0.0% 400 100.0%

Table 17: The Mahalanobis distance method

111

the normality of data. In this study for determining the normality of data

distribution the test in SPSS are performed by researcher. Also Recently, it was

suggested by Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle and Mena, 2012 suggested that researchers

should perform a normality test on the data.

In present study used a graphical method to check the normality of data collected

as suggested by Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007. As said by Field (2009) if there is

large sample of 200 or more, it is compulsory to test distribution graphically rather

than consider only skewness and kurtosis statistics. in the present study, a

histogram and normal probability plots were examined to ensure that normality

assumptions. appendix B shows that the data which has been collected for this

study depicts that data collected for the present study follow normal pattern since

all the bars on the graph were closed to a normal curve. So, the appendix B shows

that normality assumptions has been fulfilled by this study.

6.6 LINEARITY

According to Pallant, (2005) the Linearity shows the linkage among variables of

the study and that relation illustrated as straight line. As said by Hair et al, (2006)

“Linearity is implicit assumption of all multivariate techniques based on co

relational measures of associations, inclusive multiple regression, logistic

regression, factor analysis and structural equation modelling as well”. According

to Field, (2006); Tabachnick and Fidell, (2007); Hair et al., (2006) that in case of

statistics the linearity is analyzed by the help of Pearson’s correlation or scatter

plot.

Therefore, for this study researcher used Pearson’s correlation to inspect the

relationship between Independent Variables and Dependent variable. Results are

depicted in (Table17) and finding showed that the Independent variable is

significantly related to all dependent variable of study. So results reveals from

Pearson’s correlation test concluded that all variables are in linear relation.

112

6.7 HOMOSCEDASTICITY

The Homoscedasticity is next important factor to understand the relationship

between variables the next important. The term Homoscedasticity it i s important

that dependent variable should show the equal range of variance across the range

of predictor variables.

According to Hair et al., 2006 the “Homoscedasticity is desirable because the

variance of dependent variable being explained in the dependence relationship

should not be concentrated in only limited range of the independent values”.

Field, 2006 also said that we can also perceive that Homoscedasticity estimates

the variance of dependent variable with the various independent variables.

According to Gujarati, 1992; Hair et al., 2006 “The phenomenon of

Homoscedasticity occurs when the residuals in regression specification have equal

Table 18: Pearson’s correlation test

113

(Homo) spread (scedasticity). Whereas, any increase, decrease of variance is

called hetroscedasticity”. As stated by Hair, (2006) and Field, (2006) the

Homoscedasticity of any data is drawn by graphical and statistical methods in

social sciences and management sciences.

It was recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell, (2007) that when data are grouped

in any research study then Homoscedasticity is referred as homogeneity and in

order to measure homogeneity there is statistical procedure that is levene’s test of

Homogeneity suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell, (2007). Therefore, for this

study levene’s test of homogeneity of has been applied.

6.8 SAMPLE SIZE AND POWER ANALYSIS

According to Bartlett, Kotrlik, and Higgins, 2001 it is very important to calculate

accurate sample size in survey research method. Because due to determining proper

sample size it is more likely possible to minimize the major cost of sampling error. In

order to drive appropriate samlple size and to avoid sampling error, the power of a

statistical test has been used for this study. The power of a statistical test is defined as

“the probability that null hypothesis (which predicts no significant relationship between

Table 19: levene’s test

114

variables) will be rejected when it is in fact false (Cohen, 1988, 1992; Faul, Erdfelder,

Lang, & Buchner, 2007)”. It is endorse by different authors including Borenstein,

Rothstein, and Cohen, 2001; Kelley and Maxwell, 2003; Snijders, 2005 that if there is

large sample size its is more significant to use the statistical test of a power. “Power

analysis is a statistical procedure for determining an appropriate sample size for a

research study” (Bruin, 2006). Therefore, to calculate the minimum sample size for this

study, the power analysis was conducted using by stistical tool of G*Power 3.1. 9.2

recommonde by many researhcers like Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009; Faul et

al., 2007. Using the following parameters: Power (1-β err prob; 0.95), an alpha

significance level (α err prob; 0.05), medium effect size f² (0.15) and two main predictor

variables (i.e., POP and OJ), a minimum sample of 107 would be required to test a

regression based models (Cohen, 1992; Faul et al., 2009; Faul et al., 2007). So the results

drived from software (given in fig below) shows that a minimum sample size for this

study should be 107. But due low response rate from non cooperative respondents 500

questionnairs were distributed in order to get sufficient data for final study. And from

which 400 cases were used for final analysis.

115

6.8.1 DATA SAMPLE

For conducting full study, the data was collected from Public sector universities of sindh

Province. The best knowledge of researcher there are 18 hec (Higher Education

Commission) recognized public Sector universities in Sindh province from which 13

universities were approached by researcher.500 questionnaires were distributed from

which 443 questionnaires were received and 400 were useable for final analysis.

Questionnaires were distributed by hand to hand, by posting, by online mailing process

116

along with a covering letter for clarifying the information about research topic, detail

and contact source of researcher and supervisors and also by that letter researcher

ensured participate to keep their data confidential so that they can freely respond.

Snowball sampling technique was used.

The lecturer, visiting lecturer, Professors, Assistant and Associate Professors and

employees from management or administration were the participants. Also, University’s

ethical protocols were followed in order to keep positive impact on participants.

6.9 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

In below graphs no. there is detail of demographic information of respondents during

final study which includes how many men and women respond, what was their age,

number of years they work (work experience), their level of education, obtained degree,

and profession or occupation.

6.9.1 GENDER OF RESPONDENT

The graphs depict that there were more male respondents with highest percentage of

70.8% than women with percentage of 28.2%.

Table 20: Gender Status

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Male 286 70.8 71.5 71.5

Female 114 28.2 28.5 100.0

Total 400 99.0 100

117

Figure 9: Gender Status

Many of them were single with percentage of 52.5% and remaining 46.5% were

married. Details shows in graph below.

6.9.2 MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENT

Male Female

70.8

28.2

Gender

Table 21: Marital Status

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Married 188 46.5 47.0 47.0

Single 212 52.5 53.0 100.0

Total 400 99.0 100.0

118

Figure 10: Marital Status

The results show that majority of respondents were between the age of 30-39 with

highest percentage of 52%, also the employees between age of 20-29 were good in

number with percentage of 36.1. The least category was age group of between 40-49

with low percentage of 10.9%.

6.9.3 AGE OF RESPONDENT

Table 22: Age Group

Valid

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

20-29 146 36.1 36.5 36.5

30-39 210 52.0 52.5 89.0

40-49 44 10.9 11.0 100.0

Total 400 99.0 100.0

Married single

46.5

52.5

Marital Status

119

Figure 11: Age Group

The education level of respondents is demonstrated in below graph. Majority of

participants were MPhil/PhD degree holders with the highest percentage of 44.3% and

second highest percentage is 40.8% of master’s degree holders and others are having

bachelor degree with least percentage of 13.9%.

6.9.4 EDUCATION OF RESPONDENT

20-29 30-39 40-49

36.1

52

10.9

Age Group

Table 23: Education Status

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Bachelor degree 56 13.9 14.0 14.0

Master degree 165 40.8 41.3 55.3

M.Phil. or PhD 179 44.3 44.8 100.0

Total 400 99.0 100.0

120

Figure 12: Education Status

Most of respondent were experienced of 2 to 10 years with the percentage of 72.3%.

5.4% peoples were experienced less than 1 year. The respondents having experience 11

to 20 years were less with percentage of 14.6%. The participants with experience of 21

to 30 years were least with percentage of 5.9%. Respondents having experience above

31 were very poorly low with percentage of 0.5%.

6.9.5 EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENT

Bachelor Master Mphil/PhD

13.9

40.8 44.3

Education/Degree

Table 24:Experience Status

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid less than 5 years 22 5.4 5.5 5.5

5 to 10 years 292 72.3 73.0 78.5

11 to 20 years 59 14.6 14.8 93.3

21 to 30 years 24 5.9 6.0 99.3

121

Figure 13: Experience Status

The occupation category shows that majority of respondents were from teaching

faculty with highest percentage of 90.6 and respondents from administration side are

least with low percentage of 8.4.

6.9.6 OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENT

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Administration 34 8.4 8.5 8.5

Faculty 366 90.6 91.5 100.0

Less than 1year

2 to 10 years 11 to 20 Years 21 to 30 years 31 above

5.4

72.3

14.65.9 0.7

Experience

31 or above 3 .7 .8 100.0

Total 400 99.0 100.0

122

Total 400 99.0 100.0

Figure 14: Occupation Status

6.10 RELIABILITY

As brief introduction of Cronbach’s alpha reliability has been discussed above in earlier

chapter of Pilot study. Although concisely it is defined as “Cronbach’s alpha reliability

(Cronbach, 1951) is one of the most widely used measures of reliability in the social and

organizational sciences” (douglas g. Bonett1 and thomas a. Wright 2014).

Reliability Analysis use to measure the internal consistency of the items of the

scale. Cronbach’s Alpha is most well recognized model (Cronbach, 1951).

According to Forman and Nyatanga (2001); Sekaran (2000); Hair, Bush and

Ortinau (2000) “Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of this research were equal and

above than 0.7, which confirmed appropriate interior reliability of items utilized

for investigating diverse observed variables for every element in this research”.

Administration Faculty

8.4

90.6

Occupation

Table 25: Occupation Status

123

6.10. 1 OVERALL RELIABILITY OF FINAL DATA

The satisfactory least value of Coefficients Alpha is 0.7 which demonstrate the adequate

reliability and in final data the Cronbach’s alpha reliability of all constructs are more

than 0.7 as depicted in table. All items are adopted from different studies already

discussed in detail in chapter 4.

The Cronbach’s Alpha score of each construct has been showed in below tables.

Construct Cronbach’s Alpha

No of Items

Overall .887 87

Procedural Justice .809 7

Distributive Justice .924 6

Interpersonal Justice .918 6

Informational Justice .838 6

Organizational Citizenship Behavior .818 15

perception of Organizational Politics .786 13

Job Involvement .772 10

Turnover Intention .749 3

Job Satisfaction .850 10

Organizational Commitment .870 9

Work Related Burnout .777 7

6.10. 2 RELIABILITY OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CONSTRUCT

The Cronbach’s alpha Reliability score of Procedural Justice Construct is .809. This

construct having seven items. The score is more than standard value, so it shows

adequate reliability.

Table 26: Cronbach’s Alpha Score of All Constructs

124

6.10.3 RELIABILITY OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE CONSTRUCT

The Cronbach’s alpha Reliability score of Distributive Justice Construct is .924. This

construct is having four items. The score is more than standard value, so it shows

adequate reliability.

6.10.4 RELIABILITY OF INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE CONSTRUCT

The Cronbach’s alpha Reliability score of Interpersonal Justice Construct is .918. This

construct has four items. The score is also more than standard value, so it shows adequate

reliability.

6.10.5 RELIABILITY OF INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE CONSTRUCT

The Cronbach’s alpha Reliability score of Informational Justice Construct is .838. This

construct has five items. The score is also above standard value, so it shows adequate

reliability of this construct.

6.10.6 RELIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR CONSTRUCT

The Cronbach’s alpha Reliability score of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Construct is .818. This construct is having fifteen items. The score is sufficient, so it

shows adequate reliability of this construct.

6.10.7 RELIABILITY OF PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

CONSTRUCT

The Cronbach’s alpha Reliability of Organizational Politics Construct is .786. This

construct has thirteen items. The score is also above standard value, so it shows adequate


6.10.8 RELIABILITY OF JOB INVOLVEMENT CONSTRUCT

The Cronbach’s alpha Reliability score of Job Involvement Construct is .749. This is

construct having ten items. The score is also above standard value, so it shows adequate


125

6.10. 9 RELIABILITY OF TURNOVER INTENTION CONSTRUCT

The Cronbach’s alpha Reliability score of Turnover Intention Construct is .749. This

construct has three items. The score is also above standard value, so it shows adequate


6.10. 10 RELIABILITY OF JOB SATISFACTION CONSTRUCT

The Cronbach’s alpha Reliability score of Job Satisfaction Construct is .850. This

construct is having ten items. The score is also above required value, so it shows

adequate reliability of this construct.

6.10.11 RELIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT CONSTRUCT

The Cronbach’s alpha Reliability score of Organizational Commitment Construct is

.870. This construct is having nine items. The score is also above standard value, so it

shows adequate reliability of this construct.

6.10.12 RELIABILITY OF WORK RELATED BURNOUT CONSTRUCT

The Cronbach’s alpha Reliability score of Work Related Burnout Construct is .777. This

construct is having seven items. The score is also above standard value, so it shows

adequate reliability of this construct.

6.11 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

In previous chapter of pilot study, the detail discussion about descriptive statistics

has been written. For this chapter the descriptive analysis of data received from

final study of all constructs are explained in tables. In tables of descriptive analysis

of each construct the value of Mean, standard deviation of each item is given. 7 -

point Likert-type of scale ranging from strongly disagrees to strongly agree were

used to record answers. Total number of construct is 11.

6.11.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING PROCEDURAL JUSTICE

Seven items including PJ1, PJ2, PJ3, PJ4, PJ5, PJ6, and PJ7 were used to measure

construct of procedural justice. The Mean and Standard Deviation of each item of this

construct has been given in table. As 7-point Likert scale has been used to record answer,

126

so the mean value should be above 3.5. So, the mean score of all item of this construct

is more than 3.5.

Code M Std. Deviation

PJ1 4.94 1.751

PJ2 4.17 1.754

PJ3 5.45 1.388

PJ4 5.34 1.533

PJ5 5.39 1.586

PJ6 4.97 1.807

PJ7 5.02 1.672

6.11.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

Four items (DJ1, DJ2, DJ3, DJ4) were used to measure construct of distributive `justice.

The Mean and Standard Deviation of each item of this construct has been given in table.

The mean score of all item of this construct is above threshold of 3.5.


DJ1 4.61 1.972

DJ2 4.47 2.116

DJ3 4.35 2.007

DJ4 4.21 2.272

Table 27: Descriptive Statistics of items measuring Procedural Justice

Table 28: Descriptive Statistics of items measuring distributive Justice

127

6.11.3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING INTERPERSONAL

JUSTICE

Four items including IntPJ1, IntPJ2, IntPJ3, and IntPJ4 were used to measure construct

of interpersonal justice. The Mean and Standard Deviation of each item of this construct

has been given in table. The mean score of all item of this construct is also above

threshold of 3.5.

6.11.4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING INFORMATIONAL

JUSTICE

Five items including InfoJ1, InfoJ2, InfoJ3, InfoJ4, and InfoJ5 were used to measure

construct of informational justice. The Mean and Standard Deviation of each item of this

construct has been given in table. The mean score of all item of this construct is also

above threshold of 3.5.

Table 29: Descriptive Statistics Of Items Measuring Interpersonal Justice


IntPJ1 4.81 1.689

IntPJ2 4.84 1.700

IntPJ3 4.95 1.701

IntPJ4 5.04 1.627

Table 30: Descriptive Statistics Of Items Measuring Informational Justice


InfoJ1 4.86 1.687

InfoJ2 4.88 1.555

InfoJ3 4.82 1.584

InfoJ4 4.50 1.671

InfoJ5 4.71 1.327

128

6.11.5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL

POLITICS

Thirteen items including OP1, OP2, OP3, OP4, OP5, OP6, OP7, OP8, OP9, OP10,

OP11, OP12, and OP13 were used to measure construct of Organizational Politics. The

Mean and Standard Deviation of each item of this construct has been given in table. The

mean score of all item of this construct is also above threshold of 3.5.

6.11.7 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

Fifteen items including OCB1, OCB2, OCB3, OCB4, OCB5, OCB6, OCB7, OCB8,

OCB9, OCB10, OCB11, OCB12, OCB13, OCB14, and OCB15 were used to measure

construct of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The Mean and Standard Deviation of

Table 31: Descriptive Statistics of items measuring Organizational Politics


OP1 4.95 1.747

OP2 4.47 1.551

OP3 4.18 1.563

OP4 4.73 1.689

OP5 4.34 1.592

OP6 4.74 1.698

OP7 4.77 1.548

OP8 4.84 1.517

OP9 4.93 1.559

OP10 4.64 1.498

OP11 4.17 1.636

OP12 4.61 1.719

OP13 4.52 1.698

129

each item of this construct has been given in table. The mean score of all item of this

construct is also above threshold of 3.5.

6.11.8DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING WORK RELATED

BURNOUT

Seven items including WRB1, WRB2, WRB3, WRB4, WRB5, WRB6, and WRB7 were

used to measure construct of Work Related Burnout. The Mean and Standard Deviation

of each item of this construct has been given in table. The mean score of all item of this


Table32:Descriptive Statistics of items measuring Organizational Citizenship

Behavior


OCB1 5.56 1.283

OCB2 5.60 1.564

OCB3 5.39 1.403

OCB4 5.39 1.526

OCB5 5.47 1.442

OCB6 5.54 1.557

OCB7 5.44 1.547

OCB8 5.91 1.399

OCB9 5.54 1.643

OCB10 5.49 1.608

OCB11 5.32 1.718

OCB12 3.93 2.095

OCB13 3.43 2.009

OCB14 5.31 1.734

OCB15 5.21 1.711

130

6.11.9DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT

Nine items including OC1, OC2, OC3, OC4, OC5, OC6, OC7, OC8, and OC9 were used

to measure construct of Organizational Commitment. The Mean and Standard Deviation

of each item of this construct has been given in table. The mean score of all item of this


Table 33: Descriptive Statistics Of Items Measuring Work Related Burnout

Code M Std.

Deviation

WRB1 3.75 1.723

WRB2 3.73 1.595

WRB3 3.02 1.585

WRB4 3.62 1.680

WRB5 2.99 1.541

WRB6 2.91 1.605

WRB7 5.08 1.697

131

6.11.10DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING TURNOVER INTENTION

Seven items including TI1, TI2 and TI3 were used to measure construct of Turnover

Intention. The Mean and Standard Deviation of each item of this construct has been

given in table. The mean score of all item of this construct is also above threshold of 3.5.

6.11.11 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING JOB INVOLVEMENT

Seven items including JI1, JI2, JI3, JI4, JI5, and JI6 were used to measure construct of

Job Involvement. The Mean and Standard Deviation of each item of this construct has

been given in table. The mean score of all item of this construct is also above threshold

of 3.5.

Table 34: Descriptive Statistics of items measuring Organizational Commitment


OC1 5.26 1.693

OC2 5.10 1.821

OC3 5.04 1.855

OC4 4.92 1.646

OC5 5.42 1.886

OC6 4.92 1.805

OC7 5.24 1.664

OC8 5.15 1.882

OC9 5.36 1.611

Table 35: Descriptive Statistics of items measuring Turnover Intention


TI1 4.28 1.742

TI2 4.27 1.679

TI3 4.96 1.633

132


JI1 5.54 1.538

JI2 4.63 1.679

JI3 5.42 1.706

JI4 5.18 1.585

JI5 5.39 1.481

JI6 5.15 1.691

JI7 3.95 1.893

JI8 5.11 1.422

JI9 5.21 1.480

JI10 5.58 1.405

6.11.12 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ITEMS MEASURING JOB SATISFACTION

Ten items including JS1, JS2, JS3, JS4, JS5, JS6, JS7, JS8, JS9, and JS10 were used to

measure construct of Job Involvement. The Mean and Standard Deviation of each item

of this construct has been given in table. The mean score of all item of this construct is

also above threshold of 3.5.


JS1 4.57 1.728

JS2 4.86 1.660

JS3 5.17 1.557

JS4 5.12 1.779

JS5 4.79 1.722

JS6 5.10 1.734

JS7 5.03 1.630

Table 36: Descriptive Statistics of items measuring Job Involvement

Table 37: Descriptive Statistics of items measuring Job Satisfaction

133

JS8 4.89 1.704

JS9 5.28 1.329

JS10 5.35 1.542

6.12 ITEM ANALYSIS

Thompson & Levitov, (1985) defined the item analysis "investigates the performance of

items considered individually either in relation to some external criterion or in relation

to the remaining items on the test"

As said by M. Zurawski, (1996-1999) the reason of item analysis is to improve the

quality of items. It was suggested by Kumar & Beyerlein, (1991) that researcher

conduct an item analysis because main purpose is to retain those items which are

accurate and appropriate. It also called this process as item purification. Numerous

researchers including Kehoe, (1995); Ebel & Frisbie, (1986) and Ray, (1982)

suggested that the item having value of 0.19 or negative value results from

corrected item total correlation will be deleted to strengthen the construct. Other

researchers like Leak & Randall, (1995) and Ray, (1982) also suggested deleting

one item will not increase in coefficient alpha that is obtained. The reliability

statistics and item-total statistics of each construct is as shown in Tables No: 6.12

and 6.13.

6.12.1 PROCEDURAL JUSTICE

The item analysis of Procedural Justice was calculated by Seven items including

PJ1, PJ2, PJ3, PJ4, PJ5, PJ6, and PJ7 by determining score of Corrected Item-Total

Correlation and its reliability. All items were highly rated by participants. Items

showed high Corrected Item-Total Correlation with score of 611, 418, 504, 598,

529,568 and 598 respectively. Hence all items of this construct were retained for

further analysis. Details are given in table below.

134

Code Corrected Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted

PJ1 .611 .771

PJ2 .418 .807

PJ3 .504 .791

PJ4 .598 .775

PJ5 .529 .786

PJ6 .568 .779

PJ7 .598 .774

6.12.2 DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

The item analysis of Distributive Justice was calculated by four items including DJ1,

DJ2, DJ3 and DJ4 by determining score of Corrected Item-Total Correlation and its

reliability. All items were highly rated by participants. Items showed high Corrected

Item-Total Correlation with score of .809, .834, .828, .828respectively. Hence all items

of this construct were retained for further analysis. Details are given in table below.


Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted

DJ1 .809 .906

DJ2 .834 .898

DJ3 .828 .900

DJ4 .828 .901

6.12.3 INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE

The item analysis of Interpersonal Justice was calculated by four items including IntPJ1,

IntPJ2, IntPJ3, and IntPJ4 by determining score of Corrected Item-Total Correlation and

its reliability. All items were highly rated by participants. Items showed high Corrected

Table 38: The item analysis of Procedural Justice

Table 39: The item analysis of Distribution Justice

135

Item-Total Correlation with score of .804, .814, .869, .760 respectively. Hence all items

of this construct were retained for further analysis. Details are given in table below.

Code

Corrected Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted

IntPJ1 .804 .896

IntPJ2 .814 .893

IntPJ3 .869 .873

IntPJ4 .760 .910

6.13.4 INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE

The item analysis of Interpersonal Justice was calculated by five items including InfoJ1,

InfoJ2, InfoJ3, InfoJ4, and InfoJ5 by determining score of Corrected Item-Total

Correlation and its reliability. All items were highly rated by participants. Items showed

high Corrected Item-Total Correlation with score .639, .712, .712, .625 respectively.

Hence all items of this construct were retained for further analysis. Details are given in

table below.

Code


Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted

InfoJ1 .639 .807

InfoJ2 .712 .786

InfoJ3 .712 .786

InfoJ4 .625 .811

InfoJ5 .528 .834

Table 40: The Item Analysis Of Interpersonal Justice

Table 41: The Item Analysis Of Interpersonal Justice

136

6.13.5 ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

The item analysis of Organizational Politics was calculated by thirteen items

including OP1, OP2, OP3, OP4, OP5, OP6, OP7, OP8, OP9, OP10, OP11, OP12,

and OP13 by determining score of Corrected Item-Total Correlation and its

reliability. All items were highly rated by participants. Items showed high

Corrected Item-Total Correlation with score .407, .220, .218, .494, .393, .556,

.491, .451, .529, .436, .277, .549, .362 respectively. Hence all items of this

construct were retained for further analysis. Details are given in table below.

Table 42: The Item Analysis Of Organizational Politics


Correlation


Deleted

OP1 .407 .773

OP2 .220 .789

OP3 .218 .790

OP4 .494 .765

OP5 .393 .774

OP6 .556 .758

OP7 .491 .765

OP8 .451 .769

OP9 .529 .762

OP10 .436 .771

OP11 .277 .785

137

6.13.6ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

The item analysis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior was calculated by fifteen

items including OCB1, OCB2, OCB3, OCB4, OCB5, OCB6, OCB7, OCB8, OCB9,

OCB10, OCB11, OCB12, OCB13, OCB14, and OCB15 by determining score of

Corrected Item-Total Correlation and its reliability. All items were highly rated by

participants. Items showed high Corrected Item-Total Correlation with score .501, .462,

.602, .569, .627, .577, .451, .531, .492, .481, .413, .279, .095, .344, .344 respectively.

Hence all items of this construct were retained for further analysis. Details are given in

table below.

OP12 .549 .759

OP13 .362 .777

Table 43: The Item Analysis Of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Code


Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted

OCB1 .501 .804

OCB2 .462 .805

OCB3 .602 .797

OCB4 .569 .798

OCB5 .627 .795

OCB6 .577 .798

OCB7 .451 .806

OCB8 .531 .802

OCB9 .492 .803

OCB10 .481 .804

OCB11 .413 .809

OCB12 .279 .822

138

6.13.7ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

The item analysis of Organizational Commitment was calculated by fifteen items

including OC1, OC2, OC3, OC4, OC5, OC6, OC7, OC8, and OC9 by determining score

of Corrected Item-Total Correlation and its reliability. All items were highly rated by


.672, .628, .600, .669, .636, .638, .482 respectively. Hence all items of this construct

were retained for further analysis. Details are given in table below.

6.13.8JOB INVOLVEMENT

The item analysis of Job Involvement was calculated by ten items including JI1, JI2, JI3,

JI4, JI5, JI6, JI7, JI8, JI9, and JI10 by determining score of Corrected Item-Total

Correlation and its reliability. All items were highly rated by participants. Items showed

OCB13 .095 .835

OCB14 .344 .814

OCB15 .344 .813

Code


Correlation


Deleted

OC1 .576 .859

OC2 .551 .862

OC3 .672 .850

OC4 .628 .855

OC5 .600 .857

OC6 .669 .851

OC7 .636 .854

OC8 .638 .853

OC9 .482 .867

Table 44: The Item Analysis Of Organizational Commitment

139

high Corrected Item-Total Correlation with score .388, .266, .511, .619, .647, .564, -

.038, .526, .569, .529 respectively. Hence all items of this construct were retained

(except highlighted one) for further analysis. Details are given in table below.

6.13.9JOBSATISFACTION

The item analysis of job satisfaction was calculated by fifteen items including JS1, JS2,

JS3, JS4, JS5, JS6, JS7, JS8, JS9, and JS10 by determining score of Corrected Item-

Total Correlation and its reliability. All items were highly rated by participants. Items

showed high Corrected Item-Total Correlation with score .567, .621, .608, .629, .591,

.486, .466, .491, .454, .605 respectively. Hence all items of this construct were retained

for further analysis. Details are given in table below.

Table 45: The Item Analysis Of Job Involvement

Code Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha

if Item Deleted

JI1 .388 .759

JI2 .266 .776

JI3 .511 .743

JI4 .619 .729

JI5 .647 .727

JI6 .564 .735

JI7 -.038 .822

JI8 .526 .743

JI9 .569 .737

JI10 .529 .743

140

6.13.9 WORK RELATED BURNOUT

The item analysis of Work Related Burnout was calculated by seven items including

WRB1, WRB2, WRB3, WRB4, WRB5, WRB6, and WRB7 by determining score of

Corrected Item-Total Correlation and its reliability. All items were highly rated by


.645, .615, .621, .481, .087 respectively. Hence all items of this construct were retained

for further analysis. Details are given in table below.


Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted

JS1 .567 .835

JS2 .621 .830

JS3 .608 .832

JS4 .629 .829

JS5 .591 .833

JS6 .486 .843

JS7 .466 .844

JS8 .491 .842

JS9 .454 .844

JS10 .605 .832

Table 46: The Item Analysis Of Job Satisfaction

Table 47: The Item Analysis Of Work Related Burnout

Code


Correlation


Deleted

WRB1 .468 .756

WRB2 .662 .716

WRB3 .645 .720

WRB4 .615 .725

WRB5 .621 .726

141

6.13.10TURNOVER INTENTION

The item analysis of Turnover Intention was calculated by seven items including TI1,

TI2 and TI3 by determining score of Corrected Item-Total Correlation and its reliability.

All items were highly rated by participants. Items showed high Corrected Item-Total

Correlation with score .652,.701,.400 respectively. Hence all items of this construct were

retained for further analysis. Details are given in table below.

6.14 PHASE OF DATA EXPLORATION

Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine in the multidimensionality among

multi item instrument used for this study. The Principal component analysis, varimax

rotation, Kaiser Normalisation and eigen values test were applied to conclude output.

The Kaiser –Meyer –olkin (KMO) value is .717. It is significant as recommended by

Pallant in 2005 the minimum value for Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin is .60. Therefore the factor

analysis is significant for this study.

According to Pallant, 2006 the Barlett’s Test of Sphercity should be .5 or smaller

recommended as significance so for this study the values of output is met up with

significance value of (.000). Therefore, it verifies the multivariate normality of data

which used in this research.

WRB6 .481 .753

WRB7 .087 .828

Table 48: The Item Analysis Of Turnover Intention

Code Corrected Item-

Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted

TI1

.652 .572

TI2

.701 .515

TI3

.400 .850

142

As said by Floyd and Widman (1995) Items loading should be above than .40. but

Hair et al., 1998 recommended factor loading should be greater than .50 or greater

than .50 is significant. Factor loading is analyzed with help of Principal component

analysis PCA, it is known as confirmatory Factor analysis (CFA) assessment.

Result shows that four items were loaded from construct of interpersonal justice,

the second factor of distributive justice four items are loaded. The third factor

OCB, six items were significantly loaded. Fourth factor is OC, four items were

loaded from this construct. Six items were loaded from construct job involvement.

The next factor loaded is Job satisfaction with 5 items. Six items were loaded from

factor organizational politics. Work related burnout were loaded with six items.

Three items were loaded from factor turnover intentions, in last two items were

loaded from construct procedural justice.

Interpersonal

justice .893

Interpersonal

justice .843

Interpersonal

justice .842

Interpersonal

justice .815

Distributive

justice .853

Table 49: Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling

Adequacy.

.717

Bartlett's Test of

Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 25641.16

7

Df 3741

Sig. .000

Table 50: Rotated Component Matrix

143

Distributive

justice .847

Distributive

justice .843

Distributive

justice .800

Organizational

citizenship

Behavior .831

Organizational

citizenship

Behavior

.807

Organizational

citizenship

Behavior

.777

Organizational

citizenship

Behavior

.715

Organizational

citizenship

Behavior

.702

Organizational

citizenship

Behavior

.552

Organizational

Commitment

.84

0

Organizational

Commitment

.78

0

Organizational

Commitment

.77

7

Organizational

Commitment

.71

3

144

Organizational

Commitment

.67

5

Organizational

Commitment

.53

5

Job involvement

.771

Job involvement

.729

Job involvement

.724

Job involvement

.704

Job involvement

.679

Job involvement

.592

Job Satisfaction

.758

Job Satisfaction

.706

Job Satisfaction

.667

Job Satisfaction

.608

Job Satisfaction

.511

Organizational

Politics

.758

Organizational

Politics

.689

Organizational

Politics

.686

Organizational

Politics

.647

Organizational

Politics

.624

Organizational

Politics

.616

145

Work Related

Burnout

.782

Work Related

Burnout

.774

Work Related

Burnout

.764

Work Related

Burnout

.695

Work Related

Burnout

.640

Work Related

Burnout

.622

Turnover

Intension

.752

Turnover

Intension

.722

Turnover

Intension

.608

Procedural justice

.706

Procedural justice

.697

Procedural justice

.612

Procedural justice

.600

6.15 COMMUNALITY SCORES OF DATA

Hair et al, 2006 defined “Communality is the estimate of shared or common, variance

among the variables as represented by the derived factors “.

Furthermore, Hair etal., 2006 said that communality score is the quantity of variance

which is actual variance shared with all other variables concluded in results. In findings

146

when communality values are high then it shows large variance on other hand when

value of communalities is small then that reveal that large portion of the variable is not

consider significant. Although the significance level for communalities measurement is

must be above 0.5 according to Hair et al, 2006. (Please see communality Index)

Initial Extraction

Procedural justice 1.000 .734







Distributive justice 1.000 .870




Interpersonal justice 1.000 .851




Informational justice 1.000 .751





Organizational citizenship Behavior 1.000 .708

Table 51: Communality Score

147















Organizational Politics 1.000 .650













148

Job involvement 1.000 .695










Turnover Intension 1.000 .712



Job Satisfaction 1.000 .740










Organizational Commitment 1.000 .644




149






Work Related Burnout 1.000 .748







Extraction Method: Principal Component

analysis

6.16 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING

The Structural Equation Modelling is used analyze model of this study. In order

to test hypothesis and relationship among exogenous and endogenous variables

The Structural Equation Modelling is significant statistical strategy. For Structural

equation modelling the technique Partial Least Square method by using statistical

software Smartpls is conducted in this study and literature suggest like according

to Garcia, (2009) that in the social sciences research this technique is more

appropriate and realistic. And also suggest that this type of used to test path

analysis and measurement of model.

6.17 THE MEASUREMENT MODEL ANALYSIS

In order to measure the strength of model we must determine validity and

reliability of the model. Because the validity we determine that how well the

150

concept of study is logically and empirically defined and by the help of reliability

we can determine how much the measures are consistent.

The convergent and discriminant validity has been determined to check the

validity of model for this study. As said by Krathwohl, (1997) “Convergent

validity is the extent of association of two maximally different scales which

measure the same concept and determine the reliability of items and constructs”.

While Kiel et al., 2000 suggested that “discriminant validity denotes to whether

the scale is different from the other scale which measure maximally different

concept”.

Likewise, the discriminant validity used to interpret that the scale which we are

using for this study is different from other scales used to examine different concept

or model.

Furthermore Fornell, 1981 suggested that the (AVE) Average variance extract is

also a convergent validity that can be used to verify discriminant validity. Also, it

was suggested by Thatcher et al., 2002 factor loading can also be used to determine

the discriminant validity.

6.18 ITEM RELIABILITY APPRAISAL

Reliability means the consistency and stability in measurements of scale used for

the study. In other words, we can define reliability is “The extent to which resul ts

are consistent over time and an account representation of total population under

study is referred as to reliability” as defined by Joppe , (2001).

As suggested by Cronbach, (1951) reliability is the amount in which participants

give the exactly same or approximately nearby the answer to the same question

not once but almost always. The items used to analysis each construct is adopted

from previous studies which already have high reliability many times. The

software SmartPLS used to measure the item loading of each construct whether all

items are loading in their own constructs or not. It was suggested by Chin , (1998)

that the significance score for correlation among items should be above 0.5. The

items loading for this study are mention below in table and highlighted items are

those which are up to significant criteria.

151

OJ JI JS OC OCB OP TI WRB

OJ 0.721737 0.244919 0.37012 0.159753 0.142805 -0.31138 -0.27104 -0.17794

OJ 0.661831 0.308676 0.392183 0.194956 0.083401 -0.22155 -0.22819 -0.15281

OJ 0.739289 0.32881 0.439489 0.198906 0.147756 -0.30617 -0.26276 -0.1331

OJ 0.665229 0.3132 0.451393 0.224506 0.113534 -0.26906 -0.27639 -0.15308

OJ 0.636739 0.184401 0.281691 0.031223 0.229292 -0.1433 -0.05526 0.06677

OJ 0.687679 0.291213 0.415186 0.146708 0.208898 -0.19983 -0.09663 -0.02597

OJ 0.679006 0.224498 0.452514 0.098915 0.332688 -0.26081 -0.21062 -0.04881

OJ 0.664825 0.267302 0.332184 0.07196 0.192904 -0.23722 -0.2361 -0.06968

OJ 0.60473 0.151539 0.34842 0.182804 0.159171 -0.18624 -0.06332 0.06345

OJ 0.55539 0.169153 0.153256 0.081216 0.193002 -0.18332 -0.01751 0.102779

OJ 0.604603 0.149826 0.231352 0.038368 0.308562 -0.23137 -0.12162 0.002264

OJ 0.619561 0.196359 0.212524 0.093204 0.215081 -0.2389 -0.10667 0.089258

OJ 0.54701 0.126928 0.179525 -0.05283 0.349645 -0.18417 -0.09737 0.050211

OJ 0.570509 0.262635 0.261888 0.174601 0.203917 -0.07533 -0.08585 -0.05222

OJ 0.504599 0.10851 0.252797 0.11592 0.224908 -0.05712 0.005346 -0.14291

OJ 0.594037 0.22559 0.244718 0.113225 0.044705 -0.2045 -0.11121 -0.16389

OJ 0.654385 0.362813 0.36272 0.278863 0.214988 -0.21795 -0.23584 -0.17424

JI1 0.260238 0.62449 0.328556 0.203829 0.232672 0.031887 -0.02949 -0.06374

JI10 0.274102 0.696815 0.293754 0.227045 0.197729 -0.05816 -0.05285 -0.0913

JI3 0.436043 0.803003 0.403645 0.202183 0.241855 -0.15018 -0.14054 -0.2035

JI4 0.237635 0.755577 0.349698 0.154025 0.177325 0.014889 0.046665 -0.07599

JI5 0.191129 0.688444 0.237528 0.145001 0.249156 0.096237 0.115674 0.027041

JI6 0.193595 0.623612 0.173387 0.099259 0.245749 -0.00984 -0.08153 -0.03088

JI8 0.099964 0.559208 0.15997 0.05503 0.148914 -0.00017 -0.01513 0.05628

JI9 0.18931 0.648978 0.233201 0.136035 0.165408 -0.01602 -0.01994 0.005693

JS1 0.31345 0.172094 0.668503 0.198209 0.245047 -0.23941 -0.10385 0.057564

JS10 0.236566 0.333094 0.602739 0.257367 0.276952 -0.04157 -0.12255 -0.03884

JS2 0.492785 0.410805 0.806 0.201552 0.195985 -0.20539 -0.21955 -0.15374

JS3 0.380867 0.480953 0.740822 0.23333 0.319397 -0.2124 -0.18304 -0.21773

JS4 0.403133 0.239755 0.777036 0.158116 0.15552 -0.19107 -0.18174 -0.11856

JS5 0.425058 0.176547 0.712142 0.242886 0.185669 -0.2548 -0.13242 0.027853

Table 52: Item Loading

152

JS6 0.182028 0.233468 0.558206 0.082501 0.292988 -0.08604 -0.10524 -0.07792

JS8 0.319595 0.313179 0.597781 0.165116 0.127573 -0.13111 -0.19817 -0.16768

OC1 0.005556 0.051673 0.065844 0.592446 0.214317 -0.01691 -0.01477 0.131323

OC2 0.118134 0.177353 0.335667 0.628556 0.118948 -0.03606 -0.13906 0.044763

OC3 0.138897 0.143737 0.204983 0.762921 0.15401 -0.07962 -0.02451 0.016807

OC4 0.163918 0.233547 0.182421 0.735522 0.130745 -0.01701 -0.06014 0.036868

OC5 0.148269 0.132947 0.150855 0.678184 0.102478 -0.01099 -0.01391 0.023157

OC6 0.126437 0.126094 0.207931 0.746658 0.030676 0.008482 0.007059 -0.03876

OC7 0.189651 0.204839 0.211198 0.759157 0.137804 -0.07923 -0.05054 -0.07948

OC8 0.200037 0.194971 0.189589 0.785332 0.070839 -0.09289 -0.06865 -0.0326

OCB1 0.21657 0.1891 0.31 0.090402 0.717769 -0.00538 0.046254 -0.00557

OCB2 0.247711 0.326487 0.258687 0.157259 0.756271 -0.18103 -0.13815 -0.15331

OCB3 0.170997 0.109889 0.201182 0.075376 0.79525 -0.07991 -0.10318 -0.13742

OCB4 0.299544 0.254838 0.266772 0.080348 0.832295 -0.14716 -0.09495 -0.13302

OCB5 0.217401 0.240792 0.218413 0.095476 0.836091 -0.11482 -0.06754 -0.06024

OCB6 0.213822 0.278125 0.170351 0.161917 0.705446 -0.07304 0.062594 -0.08233

OCB7 0.141127 0.141985 0.14552 0.103188 0.522718 -0.14226 -0.09573 -0.10284

OP1 -0.33016 -0.01093 -0.26395 -0.16043 -0.09752 0.662597 0.322405 0.224907

OP12 -0.22876 -0.09749 -0.17371 -0.059 -0.20704 0.662378 0.251505 0.172848

OP4 -0.14257 -0.00916 -0.07776 -0.03375 -0.03887 0.67011 0.241402 0.228285

OP6 -0.25519 -0.05442 -0.19487 0.024224 -0.20817 0.712952 0.306982 0.169063

OP7 -0.19571 0.096055 -0.19492 -0.09428 0.157458 0.672736 0.199629 0.065861

OP8 -0.26006 0.003993 -0.26033 0.015528 -0.06256 0.730455 0.323057 0.214376

OP9 -0.15666 -0.06682 -0.03676 0.002786 -0.15412 0.723611 0.292284 0.202013

TI1 -0.28865 -0.1019 -0.30576 -0.04993 -0.06509 0.375321 0.900625 0.200632

TI2 -0.24329 -0.09245 -0.2545 -0.08665 -0.09967 0.370548 0.909173 0.208431

TI3 -0.04441 0.159596 0.106455 -0.01798 -0.00897 0.251769 0.610255 0.027605

WRB1 -0.07908 -0.07552 -0.13383 -0.0153 -0.13133 0.273928 0.249659 0.890943

WRB2 -0.10149 -0.07957 -0.08839 -0.00155 -0.10855 0.245526 0.134602 0.889538

WRB3 -0.13802 -0.21332 -0.14371 0.010763 -0.15329 -0.0056 0.058766 0.52504

WRB4 -0.10966 -0.14785 -0.09806 -0.01282 -0.067 0.081069 0.010629 0.652153

153

6.19 CONSTRUCT RELIABILITY MEASUREMENT

According to Krathwohl in 1997 “Construct reliability is the ability of manifest

variables to tap similar underlying construct”. Hair et al in 2006 mentioned that

Construct reliability (CR) is a test to determine how latent construct have internal

consistency in measurement. The factor loading of each construct and total of error

variance are used to calculate Construct reliability. The threshold value for

construct reliability is above .7 considered as good reliability. As also suggested

by Hair et al, in 2006 the value higher than .7 of construct reliability consider as

good convergence or internal consistency of the construct.

Average variance extracted (AVE) on other hand according to Hair et al in 2006

is used to “determine the summary measure of convergence among set of items

corresponding a latent construct”. As mentioned by Hair et al in 2006 the average

variance extract (AVE) value less than .5 notify that averagely there are more

amount of error is remaining in item than variance. According to Fornell in 1981

& Chin in 1998 “The AVE measure the variance captured by the indicator relative

to measurement error and to use a construct, AVE score should be 0.5 or more is

desirable”.

Cronbach alpha (α) determine that how good a bunch of items measure the

construct.

Alpha measures reliability above 0.7 consider as significant. So, the composite

reliability of all construct of this study is more than 0.7 and AVE score is also

significant with values of above 0.5.

154

In Items correlations, the correlation among items and measuring of all items of

each construct of this study calculated. Results showed in (table) described that

highlighted items are those which are highly co related with each other to measure

the same construct that means it confirms the Discriminant validity of construct as

suggested by Hair et al in 2006).

In addition, suggested by Gefen in 2000 to conform the confirmatory factor

analysis through SMPLS, results showed that in this study, that it is also confirmed

the validity of all construct which verify that all items are loading in their own

construct no other constructs. For generating T values, the process of

Bootstrapping has been applied. Hence the result concluded that all items are

loaded in their own construct, so it indicates that Discriminant reliability

requirement is satisfied.

Variable AVE Composite

Reliability

R-Square

Cronbachs

Alpha Communality Redundancy

JI 0.560998 0.871181 0.156429 0.838831 0.460998 0.056740

JS 0.673564 0.876345 0.285182 0.840903 0.473564 0.124023

OC 0.509952 0.891948 0.047441 0.867550 0.509952 0.019296

OCB 0.554602 0.895389 0.092246 0.862827 0.554601 0.047302

OJ 0.600786 0.918452 0.116208 0.907700 0.400786 0.044831

OP 0.677840 0.864779 ------- 0.819597 0.477840 -------

TI 0.670044 0.855420 0.185791 0.746708 0.670044 0.033334

WRB 0.571507 0.836169 0.074986 0.798578 0.571510 0.002484

Table 53: AVE AND R SQUARE VALUE

155

6.20 OPERATIONALIZATION OF MEDIATION

To test hypotheses of Mediation the MacKinnon et al., (2002) suggested fourteen

statistical methods. For this study “The Causal Steps Approach” of Baron and

Kenny (1986) has been used. T below:

Baron and Kenny's (1986) steps for mediation

Step 1: “Regress the dependent variable on the independent variable to confirm

that the independent variable is a significant predictor of the dependent variable”.

■ Independent variable ________ dependent variable

Step 2: “Regress the mediator on the independent variable to confirm that the

independent variable is a significant predictor of the mediator. If the mediator is

not associated with the independent variable, then it couldn’t possibly mediate

anything”.

■ Independent variable _________ mediator

Step 3: “Regress the dependent variable on both the mediator and independent

variable to confirm that the mediator is a significant predictor of the dependent

Table 54: Convergent and Discriminant Validity

156

variable, and the previously significant independent variable in Step #1 is now

greatly reduced, if not then not significant”.

Step 1: Direct Relationship between Dependent and Independent variables

X must be corelated with Y

• Relationship Between OP & TI is significantly related with each other

(Accepted)

• Hypothesis: Relationship Between OP & JI is significantly related with

each other (Rejected)

• Hypothesis: Relationship Between OP & JS is significantly related with

each other (Accepted)

• Hypothesis: Relationship Between OP & OC is significantly related with

each other (Rejected)

• Hypothesis: Relationship Between OP & OCB is significantly related with


157

• Hypothesis: Relationship Between OP & WRB is significantly related with


Step 2: X must be corelated with M

■ Hypothesis: Relationship btw Organizational Politics and Organizational

Justice is significantly related with each other

■ H1: Accepted

Direct effect of OJ on outcomes

158

All relationships are significant. Though this step is not included in process. But

to see the direct relationship between mediator and outcome this test was

performed.

Step 3, 4 : Relationship between Independent variable and mediator, M must

be related with Y

159

■ Hypothesis: OJ mediates the effect of OP on TI (Accepted)

■ Hypothesis: OJ mediates the effect of OP on JI (Accepted)

■ Hypothesis: OJ mediates the effect of OP on JS (Accepted)

■ Hypothesis: OJ mediates the effect of OP on OC (Accepted)

■ Hypothesis: OJ mediates the effect of OP on OCB (Accepted)

■ Hypothesis: OJ mediates the effect of OP on WRB (Rejected)

160

6.20 PATH COEFFICIENT AND T-VALUE

As said by Chin, 1998 in PLS the Bootstrapping process has been applied to conclude

the T-value of each path in the structural model, by which we drawn the value of path

that indicate whether hypotheses are accepted or rejected, and T-value indicate the

relation among the variables. The significance value of T-value is 1.96 having

significance level of 0.05 as mentioned by Hair et al in 2006.

6.20.1 THE OVERALL VIEW OF FINDINGS DIRECT RELATIONSHIP OF

INDEPENDENT (OP) AND DEPENDENT (JI, JS, OC, OCB, TI AND WRB) VARIABLES

The overall data shows that Organizational politics have negative impact but not

relatively significant relationship with Job involvement with path coeffient of -

0.234636 (t=1.014465 p=0.05). This finding suggests having politics don’t affect

the level of employee involvement in job. So, the hypothesis Organizational

politics is negatively related to Job involvement is not supported by results. Next

the results show Organizational politics highly impact the level of job satisfaction,

if politics will increase then the level job satisfaction of employees will decrease

both are negatively related with path coeffient of -0.275667 (t=5.253433p=0.01).

So, the hypothesis Organizational politics is negatively related to job satisfaction

is supported by results. The results conclude that Organizational politics have

negative impact but not relatively significant on organizational commitment with

path coeffient of -0.093080 (t= 0.832977p=0.05). This finding suggests having

politics don’t affect the level of commitment of employees with organization. So,

the hypothesis Organizational politics is negatively related to organization

commitment is not supported by results. after that the results shows Organizational

politics highly impact the level of organizational citizenship behavior, if politics

Table 55: Direct Effects: Path Coefficients and T-Values

Path Coeffient Standard Error T Statistics

OP -> JI -0.234636 0.231290 1.014465

OP -> JS -0.275667 0.052474 5.253433

OP -> OC -0.093080 0.111744 0.832977

OP -> OCB -0.180278 0.060181 2.995601

OP -> TI 0.411253 0.042187 9.748422

OP -> WRB 0.278377 0.043120 6.455899

161

will increase then the positive behavior of citizenship within organization will

decrease both are negatively related with each other with path coeffient of -

0.180278 (t=2.995601 p=0.01). So, the hypothesis Organizational politics is

negatively related to job satisfaction is supported by results. Also, the results show

Organizational politics highly impact the intention to leave organization, if politics

will increase then the turnover intention of employees will also increase both are

positively related with each other with path coeffient of 0.411253 (t=9.748422

p=0.01). So, the hypothesis Organizational politics is positively related to turnover

intention is supported by results. Likewise, the results concluded that

Organizational politics highly impact the work-related burnout among employees,

if politics will increase then the feelings of burnout of employees regarding their

job will also increase both are positively related with each other with path coeffient

of 0.278377 (t=6.455899 p=0.01). So, the hypothesis Organizational politics is

positively related to turnover intention is supported by results.

Table 56: Indirect effect: Path Coefficients And T-Values

LINK Coefficient Standard Error T Statistics

OJ -> JI 0.418948 0.040718 10.289058

OJ -> JS 0.493447 0.042880 11.507561

OJ -> OC 0.221131 0.049172 4.497091

OJ -> OCB 0.282176 0.065167 4.330008

OJ -> TI -0.133754 0.058264 2.295662

OJ -> WRB -0.017447 0.084146 0.207343

162

6.20.2 THE OVERALL VIEW OF FINDINGS AFTER MEDIATING OF OJ THE

RELATIONSHIP OF INDEPENDENT (OP) AND DEPENDENT (JI, JI, OC, OCB, TI AND

WRB) VARIABLES

The overall data shows that Organizational politics changes its impact on

outcomes after mediating of Organizational Justice as after having Organizational

Justice at workplace the negative work-related attitudes changes into positive

those which are suffer due to politics also change their position. Therefore, the

results concluded that Organizational politics and Organizational Justice have

negative and significant relationship with each other having path coeffient of -

0.340893 (t=7.188743p=0.01). This finding suggests when one will increase other

will decreases. So, the hypothesis Organizational politics have significant negative

relationship with Organizational Justice is supported by results. Next the results

shows Organizational politics is negatively related to organizational justice but

after having mediator of organizational justice, the involvement of employee

towards their job will increase, so highly it impact the level of job involvement

within employees, if Justice will increases then the then employee involvement in

job will also increase so relationship between Organizational Justice and Job

Involvement are positively and significantly related to each other with path

OP -> JI -0.036159 0.077392 0.467223

OP -> JS -0.264551 0.064176 4.122297

OP -> OC -0.064993 0.056669 1.146889

OP -> OCB -0.147903 0.063191 2.340590

OP -> OJ -0.340893 0.047420 7.188743

OP -> TI 0.412286 0.041567 9.918690

OP -> WRB 0.273343 0.071891 3.802191

163

coeffient of 0.418948 (t=10.289058 p=0.05). So, the hypothesis Organizational

Justice mediates the effects of Organizational politics on job involvement is

supported by results.

Next the results show Organizational politics is negatively related to

organizational justice but after having mediator of organizational justice, highly

impact the level of employee job satisfaction, if Justice will increase then the level

of satisfaction of employees in their job will also increase so the relationship

between Organizational Justice and Job satisfaction are positively and

significantly related to each other with path coeffient of 0.493447 (t=11.507561

p=0.01). Therefore, the hypothesis Organizational Justice mediates the effects of

Organizational Politics on job Satisfaction is supported by results.

Consequently, the results concluded that Organizational politics is negatively

related to organizational justice but after having mediator of organizational justice,

highly impact the level of employee commitment towards their organization. if

Justice will increase then the commitment of employees towards their organization

will also increase so the relationship between Organizational Justice and

Organizational Commitment are positively and significantly related to each other

with path coeffient of 0.221131 (t=4.497091p=0.01). Therefore, the hypothesis

Organizational Justice mediates the effects of Organizational Politics on

Organizational Commitment is supported by results.

Likewise, the results demonstrated that Organizational politics is negatively

related to organizational justice but after having mediator of organizational justice

with outcomes, highly impact the behavior of employee within organization. if

Justice will increase then the Organizational citizenship behavior of employees

towards within organization will also increase so the relationship between

Organizational Justice and Organizational citizenship behavior are positively and

significantly related to each other with path coeffient of 0.282176 (t=4.330008

p=0.01). Therefore, the hypothesis Organizational Justice mediates the effects of

Organizational Politics on Organizational citizenship behavior is supported by

results.

164

The results show that Organizational politics is negatively related to

organizational justice but after having mediator of organizational justice with

outcomes, highly impact the intention of employee to leave organization. if Justice

will increase then the turnover intention of employees within organization will

decrease so the relationship between Organizational Justice and turnover intention

are negatively and significantly related to each other with path coeffient of -

0.133754 (t=2.295662p=0.05). Therefore, the hypothesis Organizational Justice

mediates the effects of Organizational Politics on turnover intention is supported

by results.

The results show that Organizational politics is negatively related to

organizational justice but after having mediator of organizational justice with

outcomes, highly impact the feeling of burnout among employees. if Justice will

increase then the feeling of burnout among employees will decrease so the

relationship between Organizational Justice and work-related burnout are

negatively and significantly related to each other with path coeffient of -0.017447

(t=0.207343 p=0.05). Therefore, the hypothesis Organizational Justice mediates the

effects of Organizational Politics on work related burnout is supported by results.

6.21 SUMMARY OF RESULTS


Organizational Justice. (Accepted)


Turnover Intention. (Accepted)


Related Burnout. (Accepted)


Satisfaction. (Accepted)


Organizational Commitment. (Not Accepted)

165


Organizational Citizenship Behavior. (Accepted)


Involvement. (Not Accepted)


Politics on Job Satisfaction. (Accepted)


Politics on Organizational Commitment. (Accepted)


Politics on Job Involvement. (Accepted)


Politics on Turnover Intentions. (Accepted)


Politics on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. (Accepted)


Politics on Job Related Burnout. (Not Accepted)

166

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

This chapter provides information and conclusion regarding research problem in what

extent Organizational Power and Politics negatively influence their employee’s job-

related outcomes and by the existence of Organizational Justice how to reduce the

political influences. The positivist methodology phenomenon was followed for this

study and a survey questionnaire used to gather quantitative data to examine the research

hypotheses. Public sector Universities of Sindh Province of Pakistan were chosen as

sample population. Structural equation modeling (SEM) technique was applied to

determine the hypothetical relationships among the variables.

In this chapter there is discussion about theoretical and practical contribution and also

the discussed about limitations of the study and directions for future research

possibilities has been given.

7.1 CONCLUSION

Objective 1: To examine the direct relationship between Perceptions of

organizational politics and Organizational Justice.


Organizational Justice. (Accepted)

Conclusion: The study concluded that there is significant relationship between

Perceptions of organizational politics and Organizational Justice.

Objective 2: To investigates the direct effects Perceptions of Organizational

Politics on work related outcomes including Job Involvement, Job

Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Organizational Citizenship

Behavior, Job Related Burnout and Intent to Turnover in higher education

institutions of Sindh.


Turnover Intention. (Accepted)

167


Related Burnout. (Accepted)


Satisfaction. (Accepted)


Organizational Commitment. (Rejected)


Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. (Accepted)


Involvement (Rejected)

Conclusion: As for mediating effects of OJ on outcomes relationships, the results

have shown significant mediating effects of OJ with OP for al l outcomes except

one (work related Burnout).

Objective 3: To assess the mediating role of Organizational Justice on

workplace attitudes.

Hypothesis 8: Organizational Justice mediates the effect of Organizational Politics

on Job Satisfaction. (Accepted)

Hypothesis 9: Organizational Justice mediates the effect of Organizational Politics

on Organizational Commitment. (Accepted)


Politics on Job Involvement (Accepted)


Politics on Turnover Intentions. (Accepted)


Politics on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. (Accepted)


Politics on Job Related Burnout. (Rejected)

168

Conclusion

The main effects analyses have also revealed perceptions of politics to have

significant relationships with most of outcomes studied in this research. As for

mediating effects of OJ on outcomes relationships, the results have shown

significant mediating effects of OJ with OP for al outcomes except one (work

related Burnout).

Hopefully, this research has made a valuable contribution by adding to the growing

body of literature on the two very important and current research areas of

organizational life in the collectivist and less developed culture of Pakistan.

7.2 THEORITICAL CONTRIBUTION

This study suggested that, it is very important to explore about these broad areas

of social science like organizational politics and organizational justice and their

relationship with each other and with job related outcomes, especially in context

of South Asian collectivist culture like Pakistan. It is also worth mentioning that

the findings of this research support most of prior research on the relationships

between organizational politics, justice and outcomes.

This research helps to learn not only about the main effects of perception of

politics on four justice dimensions but also investigated their interactive effects

on relationship outcomes.

The research also shown that perceptions of politics have significant relationship

with all outcomes which were proposed. As for mediating effects of justice on

perception of politics with outcomes relationships, the results have shown

significant interactive effects of justice dimensions on perceptions of politics with

all outcomes.

This study has revealed there is a pivotal role of justice in a collectivist culture

like Pakistan. This study has been concluded that there is strong relationship

among organizational commitment, turnover intention, OCB and job satisfaction.

And organizational politics is found strong predictor of job related burnout and

turnover intensions

169

The results have shown that the employees who perceive their organization is free

from politics a stronger positive relationship between positive work outcome and

justice dimensions is found for those as compared to those who perceive the

presence of politics at workplace.

It was also recommended by this study that administration should concentrate to

make strategies for boosting the level of perceptions of justice at workplace and

try to discourage political perception of employees to create conducive

environment for achieving enhanced levels of job satisfaction, job involvement,

OCB and organizational commitment and reduced level of turnover intention and

Job-Related Burnout.

This study also concluded that Organizational politics have adverse effects. Politics is

one of the sources of creating psychological disharmony within employees and also a

reason of stress in organizational environment, therefore Politics has a positive

relationship with job related burnout and turnover intensions of employees working in

public sectors universities of Sindh.

7.3 PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTION

This study has successfully explored and examined the relationship among

Organizational Politics, Organizational Justice and work-related outcomes including Job

Satisfaction, Job Involvement, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Job-Related

Burnout, Turnover Intension and Commitment in Public sector Universities of Sindh

Province of Pakistan.

Despite of having many limitations, this research may be useful for organizations.

Some of important contributions which are suggestion by this research are as

under:

Research recommends that the administration of the institutions should not ignore

the presence of politics within organization, because this study concluded

organizational politics as destructive factor.

Undoubtly humans are most important asset of an organization. Because ultimate

success of any organization mainly depends on the skills, expertise, and positive

attitudes of employees, and their positive behavior depends on their perception about

170

environment of their organization. If they perceive political environment they will feel

threaten if they feel fairness at workplace their efficiency will increase. Keeping this

view point there should be need of organizational experts like psychologists, so

organizations can judge their perception and behavior accordingly.

Organization should take care of all justice dimensions to get desirable levels of

job satisfaction, organizational commitment, OCB, job involvement.

It is found in this study that the presence of organizational justice creates such a free and

fair environment for the worker, so that political maneuvers can be reduced. This will

ultimately reduce the effect of organizational politics at workplace.

Another finding of this research is that the existence of organizational politics, unfair

increments and promotions are observed. And it was also investigated that it is due to

the lack of organizational justice at workplace that creates professional jealousy and

schism among employees, which ultimately creates rifts between organization and

employees also. Therefore, it is concluded that lack of organizational justice considered

as a trigger to the occurrence of organizational politics at workplace.

7.3 FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The current study is perhaps the first empirical test especially in Sindh Province

mainly higher education sectors to examining perceptions of politics - outcomes

relationships with mediating effects of organizational justice.

There is a need to explore more outcome variables so for future research the

outcomes including job performance, stress etc should be investigated.

In this study male respondent were in majority than female. However, the pas

research suggests that reactions to politics and justice are moderate by gender as

also recommended by Desmarais & Curtis 1991; Farmer & Fyans 1980; Helmreich

& Spence 1978; Major & Konar 1984, McFarlin etal., 1989; Veroff 1977. So

future research should consider equal number of respondent in term of gender or

should take more female respondents that may result different findings.

171

In this study cross-sectional data has been carried out so longitudinal study should

be carried out that may overcome different results on given conditions and

variables.

Future Researches should conduct comparative research like on private and public

sector universities as this study covers public sector universities only. Also this

research only conducted on acdemic section so future research should cover other

sectors also like health, banking, manufacturing, etc.

In this study only, public sector universities of sindh Province are taken as sample

area. For Future research it is recommended to include other provinces also.

Future researchers should include more variables including leadership style and

HR policies to understand the relationship of perceived organizational politics

with job outcomes.

It is also recommended that the relationship between perceived organizational

politics and organizational performance even also employee’s performance should

be investigated.

7.4 LIMITATIONS PERTAIN IN THIS STUDY

This study has some limitations as well as has certain strengths. Some major

limitations are addressed for existing research on organizational politics and

organizational justice and their relationship with work related outcome.

First, its scope is limited because this study is conducted in universities of Sindh

only, so gerneralization of finding might not be generalize to findings of whole

country.

Second, the respondent for this study are faculty and administrative staff of public

sector universittes so finding for private universities could be different from this.

As this research is conducted on academic institutions only other context like

industrial, healthcare, national and multinational companies etc. can be consider.

172

This is a self-financed study consequently researcher is unable to extend the scope

of study in terms of data collection.

Only Quantitative technique is used in this Study either there are other techniques

as well. E.g. Qualitative, mixed.

The time was also limited to complete research study therefore only 13 universities

can be approached. So, more sample population can be targeted as per time given

for research.

173

REFRENCES

Adams, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436.

Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berekowitz (Ed.),

Advances in experimental social psychology, 2, 267-299. New York:

Academic Press.

Adamski, T. (1992). Politics of management. Management Research News, 5,

19-24.

Aiken, L.S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting

interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aleryani, Samir. (2007). Improving the Quality of Higher Education in Yemen,

paper presented on Shaping the Furute of Yemenis Through Education,

AAYSP 1st Conference, The Westin Hotel, Washinton. (7th, Apr., 2007).

Alexnader, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive

justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research , 1, 177-198.

Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of

affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization.

Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

Allen, R.W., Madison, D.L., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P.A., & Mayes, B. T.

(1979). Organizational politics: Tactics and characteristics of its actors.

California Management Review, 22, 77-83.

Allison, G.T. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. American

Political Science Review, 63(3), 689-718.

Alvi, S.A., Ahmad, S.W. (1987). Assessing Organizational Commitment in a

Developing Country: Pakistan, A Case Study. Human Relations, 40(5),

267-280.

Ambrose, M.L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive

justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg, & J.A. Colquitt (Eds.) , The

Handbook of Organizational Justice, 59-84. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ambrose, M.L., (2002). Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar

questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89,

803-812.

174

Ang, S., Dyne, L.V., & Begley, T.M. (2003). The employment relationships of

foreign workers versus local employees: A field study of organizational

justice, job satisfaction, performance, and OCB. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 24, 561-583.

Aquino, K., Griffeth, R.W., Allen, D.G., & Hom, P.W. (1997). Integrating

justice constructs into the turnover process: A test of a referent cognitions

model. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1208-1227.

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.

Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., & Budhwar, P. S. (2004). Exchange fairness and employee

performance: An examination of the relationship between organizational politics

and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

94, 1-14

Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., & Budhwar, P. S. (2004). Exchange fairness and

employee performance: An examination of the relationship between

organizational politics and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 94, 1-14

Austin, W., & Walster, E. (1974). Participants’ reactions to “equity with the

world.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 528-548.

Bacharach & E.J. Lawler (Eds) (1998), Research in the sociology of organizations, 17, 87-130. Stauford, CT: JAI Press.

Bacharach, S.B., & Lawler, E.J. (1998). Political alignments in organizations. In

Kramer, R.M., & Nedle, M.A. (Eds.), Power and influence in

organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 75-77.

Bailey, J.M., & Bhagat, R.S. (1987). Meaning and measurement of stressors in

the work environment: An evaluation. In S.V. Kasl & C.L. Cooper (Eds.),

Stress health: Issues in research methodology, 207-229. Chicester:Wiley

Ball, G.A., Trevino, L.K., & Sims, H.P., Jr. (1994). Just and unjust punishment:

Influences on subordinate performance and citizenship. Academy of

Management Journal, 37, 299-322.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator- mediator variable

distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and

statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

51, 1173-1182.

175

Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and

performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal

setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715-722.

Bartol, K.R. (1974). Males vs. females leaders. The Academy of Management

Journal, 17, 225-233.

behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.

Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and

reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59-73.

Bhatnagar, D. (1992). Understanding political behaviour in organizations: a

framework, Vikalpa, 17(2), 15–22.

Biberman, G. (1985). Personality and characteristic work attitudes of persons

with high, moderate, and low political tendencies. Psychological Reports,

57, 1303-1310.

Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in) justice: The sacred and the profane. In J.

Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice, 89-

118. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bies, R.J. (1987). Beyond “voice”: The influence of decision-maker justification

and sincerity on procedural fairness judgments. Representative Research in

Social Psychology, 17, 3-14

Bies, R.J., & Moag, J.F. (1986). Interactional Justice: Communication criteria of

fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard; & M.H. Bazerman (Eds.),

Research on negotiation in organizations, 1, 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Bies, R.J., & Shapiro, D.L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The

influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199-218.

Bies, R.J., & Tripp, T.M. (1996). Beyond distrust: “Getting even” and the need

for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations,

246-260. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Bies, R.J., & Tripp, T.M. (2001). A passion for justice: The rationality and

morality of revenge. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace:

From theory to practice, 2,197-226. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Bies, R.J., Martin, C.L., & Brockner, J. ((1993). Just laid off, but still a “good

citizen?” Only if the process is fair. Employee Responsibilities and Rights

Journal, 6, 227-238.

176

Bies, R.J., Shapiro, D.L., & Cummings, L.L. (1988). Causal accounts and

managing organizational conflict: Is it enough to say it’s not my fault?

Communication Research, 15, 381-399.

Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1984). Synergy: A new strategy for education,

training and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blau, G.J., & Boal, K.R. (1987). Conceptualizing how job involvement and

organizational commitment affect turnover and absenteeism. Academy of

Management Review, 290.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley: New York.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bolino, M.C., & Turnley, W.H. (2003). More than one way to make an

impression. Journal of Management, 29, 141-60.

Bolino, M.C., & Turnley, W.H. (2003). More than one way to make an impression. Journal of Management, 29, 141-60

Borenstein, M., Rothstein, H., & Cohen, J. (2001). Power and precision.

Englewood, NJ: Biostat, Inc.

Bozeman, D.P., & Kacmar, K.M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression

management process in organizations’ Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 9-30.

Bozeman, D.P., Perrewe, P.L., Hochwarter, W.A., & Brymer, R.A. (2001).

Organizational politics, perceived control, and work outcomes: Boundary

conditions on the effects of politics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

31(3), 486-503.

Brass, D.J. (1984). Being in the right place: a structural analysis of individual

influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518-

539.

Brenner, O.C., & Vinake, W.E. (1979). Accommodative and exploitative

behavior of males versus females and managers versus non-managers as

measured by test of strategy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42 (3), 289-293.

Brief, A.P. & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors .

Academy of Management Review, 11, 710-725.

177

Brockner, J. & Adsit L. (1986). The moderating impact of sex on the equity-

satisfaction relationship: a field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,

585-590.

Brockner, J. (2002). Making sense of procedural fairness: How high procedural

fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome favorability.


Brtlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research:

Determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size

in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal,

19(1), 43-50.

Bruin, J. (2006). Newtest: command to compute new test, from

http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ado/analysi

Burke, R.J. (1988). Sources of managerial and professional stress in large

organizations. In C.L. Cooper & Payne, R.(Eds.), Causes, coping and

consequences of stress at work, 77-112. Chicester: Wiley.

Burns, T. (1961). Micropolitics: Mechanisms of institutional change.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 6, 257-281.

Burton, J.P., Sablynski, C.J., & Sekiguchi, T.(2008). Linking justice,

performance, and citizenship via leader – member exchange. Journal of

Business Psychology, 23, 51-61.

Butt, A.N., & Choi, J. N. (2006). The effects of cognitive appraisal and emotion

on social motive and negotiation behaviour: The critical role of agency of

negotiator emotion. Human Performance, 19(4), 305-325.

Butt, A.N., & Choi, J. N., & Jaegar, A. M. (2005). The effects of self -emotion,

counterpart emotion and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: A

comparison of individual- level and dyad-level dynamics. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26,1-24.

Byrne, Z.S. (2005) Fairness Reduce the Negative Effects of Organizational

Politics on Turnover Intentions, Citizenship Behavior and Job Performance.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 175-200.

Byrne, Z.S., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Understanding procedural and

interactional justice: A multi-foci approach to predicting organizational

commitment, citizenship behaviors, and job performance.

178

Caldwell, D.F., & O’ Reilly, C.A. (1982). Responses to failure: The effects of

choice and responsibility on impression management. Academy of

Management Journal, 25, 121136.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The michigan

organizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Campbell, J. J., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial

Cheng, J.L. (1983). Organizational context and upward influence: an

experimental study of the use of power tactics. Group Organizational

Studies, 8, 337-55.

Chin, W. (ed) 1998, The partial least squares approach to structrual equation modelling.Modern Methods for Business Research:Methodology for Business & Management series. .295-336., In G.,Marcouldis(Ed) edn, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Christie, R. (1970). Why Machiavelli?. In R. Christie & F. L. Geis (Eds.),

Studies in Machiavellianism, 1-9. New York, Ny: Academic Press.

Christie, R., & Geis, F.L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY:

Academic press.

Cobb, A.T.(1992). Leader fairness in times of organizational change. Paper

presented to the leader fairness Symposium , National Academy of

Management Meeting, Las Vegas. N.

Cobb, A.T., & Frey, F.M. (1996). The effects of leader fairness and pay

outcomes on superior/subordinate relations. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 26, 1401-1426.

Cobb, A.T., Folger, R., & Wooten, K. (1995). The role justice plays in

organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 19, 135-151.

Cobb, A.T., Vest, M., & Hills, F. (1997). Who delivers justice? Source

perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

27, 1021-1040.

Cobb, A.T., Wooten, K.C., & Folger, R. (1995). Justice in the making: Towards

understanding the theory and practice of justice in organizational change

and development. In W.A. Prasmore & R.W. Woodman (Eds.) Research in

Organizational Change and Development, 8, 243-295. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

179

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi:

10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis

for the behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P.E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations:

A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86,

278-324.

Colquitt, J.A. (1999). The impact of procedural justice in teams: An analysis of

task, team, and member moderators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Michigan State University, East Lansing.

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

validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

Colquitt, J.A., & Shaw, J.C. (2005). How should organizational justice be

measured? In J. Greenberg, & J.A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of

organizational justice, 113-152. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O. L.H., & Ng, K.Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of

organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,425-445.

Conlon, D.E., Porter, C.O.L.H., & Parks, J.M. (2004). The fairness of decision

rules. Journal of Management, 30, 329-349.

Cowherd, D., & Levine, D.I. (1992). Product quality and pay equity between

low-level employees and top management: An investigation of distributive

justice theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), 302-320.

Cranny, C., Smith, P., & Stone, E. (Eds.), (1992). Job satisfaction: How people

feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance . New York:

Lexington Books.

Cropanzano, R. (1993). (Ed.). Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in

human resource management. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cropanzano, R. , & Folger, R. (1991) Procedural justice and worker motivation.

In R. Steers & L. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior, 131-143.

New York: McGrawHill.

Cropanzano, R., & Baron, R. (1991). Injustice and organizational conflict: The

moderating role of power restoration. International Journal of Conflict

Management, 2, 5-26.

180

Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. (1989). Referent cognitions and task decision

autonomy: Beyond equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 293-

299.

Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice:

Tunneling through the maze. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.),

Interactional review of industrial and organizational psychology, 317-372.

New York: Wiley.

Cropanzano, R., & Prehar, C.A. (1999, April). Using social exchange theory to

distinguish procedural from interactional justice . Paper presented at the

14th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, Atlanta, GA.

Cropanzano, R., & Randall, M.L. (1993). Injustice and work behavior: A

historical review. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace:

Approaching fairness in human resource management, 3-20. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z.S., Bobocel, D.R., & Rupp, D.E. (2001). Self-

enhancement biases, laboratory experiments. George Wilhelm Friendrich

Hegel and increasingly crowded world of organizational justice. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 58, 260-272.

Cropanzano, R., Howes, J.C., Grandey, A.A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship

of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and

stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.

Cropanzano, R.S., Kacmar, K.M. & Bozeman, D.P. (1995). Organizational

politics, justice, and support: Their differences and similarities, 1-18, in

R.S. Cropanzano & K.M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics. Justice

and support: Managing social climate at work. Westport, CT: Quorum

Books.

Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation . Psychological

Review, 83, 85-113.

Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral

Scientist, 27, 371-386.

Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

D. Organ, and T. Bateman. Organizational Behavior. United States of America: Richard D. Irwin. 1991

Dahl, R. (1957) The Concept of Power. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2, 201-215.

181

Dailey, R.C., & Kirk, D.J. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as

antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations,

45, 305-317.

Daly, J.P., & Geyer, P.D. (1994). The role of fairness in implementing large-

scale change: Employee evaluations of process and outcome in seven

facility relocations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 623-638.

Das A. Kumar. (2008). University Administration in India: Some Suggestions for

Renovations and Reforms, Prabhat Kumar Sharma for Sarup & Sons, Delhi.

DeCremer, D., van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., Mullenders, D., &

Stinglhamber, F. (2005). Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as

determinants of self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 3-12.

DeMore, S.W., Fisher, J.D., & Baron, R.M. (1988). The equity-control model as

a predictor of vandalism among college students. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 18, 80-91.

Dennis, G. (1998). Here today, gone tomorrow: How management style affects

job satisfaction and, in turn, employee turnover. Corrections Today, 60, 96-

102.

Desmarais, S. & Curtis, J. (1991). Gender differences in perceived income

entitlements. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social

Justice Research. Utrecht, the Netherlands.

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.

Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective.

New Haven CT: Yale Univ. Press.

Dewar, R.D., Whetten, D.A., & Boje, D. (1980). An examination of the

reliability and validity of the Aiken and Hage scales of centralization,

formalization, and task routineness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25,

120-128.

Diekmann, K.A., Samuels, S.M., Ross, L., & Bazerman, M.H. (1997). Self -

interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus

recipients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1061-1074.

Downs, G. & Mohr, L. (1976). Conceptual issues in the study of innovations. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 21, 70&714.

Draft, R.L. (1989). Organization theory and design (3rd ed.). St. Paul: West

Publishing Co.

182

Draft, R.L. (1992). Organization theory and design (4th ed.). St. Paul: West

Publishing Co.

Drory, A. & Romm, T. (1988). Politics in organization and its perceptions in the

organization. Organizational Studies, 9, 165-179.

Drory, A. & Romm, T. (1990). The definition of organizational politics: A

review. Human Relations, 43, 1133-1154.

Drory, A. (1993). Perceived political climate and job attitudes. Organizational

Studies, 14, 59-71.

Drory, A., & Beaty, D. (1991). Gender differences in the perception of

organizational influence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(3), 249-

258.

DuBrin, AJ. (1978). Winning at office politics New York: Van Nostrand-

Reinhold.

DuBrin, AJ. (1988). Career maturity, organizational rank and political behavior

tendencies: A correlation analysis of organizational politics and career

experience. Psychological Reports, 63, 531-537.

Dye, C.F. (1990). Ten rules define HR’s role. The Personnel Journal, 69(6), 82-

86.

Dyke, L. S. (1990). Self promotion in organizations. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Queen University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Earley, P.C., & Lind, E.A. (1987). Procedural justice and participation in task

selection: The role of control in mediating justice judgments. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1148-1160.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & Lowe, A. (2002). Management Research: an

introduction (2nd edn), London, Sage.

Ebel, R. L. and Frisbie, D. A. (1986). Essentials of educational measurement.

Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived

organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-50

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived

organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-50

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L.J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision

making in high velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory.

Academy of Management Journal, 31, 737-770.

183

Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in

performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 555-

578.

Erez, M., & Rim, Y. (1982). The relationship between goals, influence tactics

and personal and organizational variables. Human Relations, 35, 877-8.

Erez, M., Rim, Y., & Keider, I. (1986). The two sides of the tactics of influence:

agent vs. targets. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 25-39.

Fandt, P.M., & Ferris, G.R. (1990). The management of information and

impressions: When employees behave opportunistically. Organizational

Bahavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 140-158.

Farh, J.L., Earley, P.C., & Lin, S.C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural

analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese

society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421-444.

Farmer, H.S. & Fyans, L.J. (1980). Women’s achievement and career motivation:

Their risk-taking patterns, home-career conflict, sex role orientation, fear

of success, and selfconcept. In: Fyans, L.J. (Ed.), Achievement motivation:

recent trends in theory and research. Plenum Press, New York, 390-416.

Farmer, S.M., Fedor, D.B., Maslyn, J.M, & Goodman, J.S. (1993). Strategies in

upward influence: Antecedents of upward influence styles. Proceedings of

the Annual Conference of the Southern Management Association, Atlanta,

GA.

Farrel, D., & Peterson, J.C. (1982). Patterns of political behavior in organization.


Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C.E. (1992). Exploring the exit, voice, loyalty and neglect

typology: The influence of job satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and

investment size. Special Issue: Research on Hirschman’s Exit, Voice, and

Loyalty model. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 5, 201-218.

Fassina, N., Jones, D., & Uggerslev, K. (2008). Meta-analytic tests of

relationships between organizational justice and citizenship behaviors:

testing agent-system and shared-variance models. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 29, 805-828.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power

analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses.

Behaviour Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/brm.41.4.1149

184

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible

statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioural, and biomedical

sciences. Behaviour Research Methods, 39, 175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146.

Fedor, D., G. R. Ferris, G. Harrell-Cook, & G. S. Russ. (1998). The Dimensions

of Politics Perceptions and Their Organizational and Individual Predictors.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1760-1797.

Fedor, D., Maslyn, J., Farmer, S., & Bettenhausen, K. 2008. Perceptions of

positive organizational politics and their impact on organizational

outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38: 76-96.

Fedor, D.B. (1991). Recipient responses to performance feedback: A proposed

model and its implication. In G.R. Ferris & K.M Rowland (Eds.), Research

in personnel and human resource management, 9. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter,

A. P. 2002. Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research

directions. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi -

level issues: 179-254. Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1995). Political

fairness and fair politics: The conceptual integration of divergent

constructs. Organizational politics, justice, and support, 21-36.

Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Galang, M.C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K.M., & Howard,

J.L. (1996). Perceptions of organizational politics: Predictors, stress-related

implications, and outcomes. Human Relations, 49, 233-266.

Ferris, G. R., Harrell-Cook, G., & Dulebohn, J.H. (2000). Organizational

politics: The nature of the relationship between politics perceptions and

political behavior. In: S. B. Bacharach & E.J. Lawler (Eds), Research in the

sociology of organizations, 17, 87-130. Stauford, CT: JAI Press.

Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. 1989. Politics in organizations. In R.

A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld politics. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55:

277- (Eds.), Impression management in the organization: 143-170.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ferris, G.R., & Buckley, M.R. (1990). Performance evaluation in high

technology firms: Process and politics. In L.R. Gomez-Mejia & M.W.

Lawless (Eds.), Organizational issues in high technology management,

243-263. Greenwich. CT: JAI Press.

185

Ferris, G.R., & Judge, T.A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A

political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 1-42.

Ferris, G.R., & Kacmar, K.M (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics.

Journal of Management, 18, 93-116.

Ferris, G.R., & Kacmar, K.M. (1989). Perceptions of organizational politics.

Paper presented at the 49th Annual Academy of Management meeting,

Washington, D.C.

Ferris, G.R., & King, T.R. (1991). Politics in human resources decisions: A walk

on the dark side, Organizational Dynamics, 20, 59-71.

Ferris, G.R., & King, T.R. (1991). Politics in human resources decisions: A walk

on the dark side, Organizational Dynamics, 20, 59-71.

Ferris, G.R., & Mitchell, T.R. (1987). The components of social influence and

their importance for human resources research. In K.M. Rowland & G.R.

Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 5,

103-128. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ferris, G.R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R.W., Hochwarter, W.A. & Ammeter, A.P.

(2002). Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research

directions. In F.J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-

level issues: The many faces of multi-level issues, 1, 179-254. Oxford: JAI

Press / Elsevier Science.

Ferris, G.R., Brand, J.F., Brand, S., Rowland, K.M., Gilmore, D.C., King, T.R.,

Kacmar, K.M., & Burton, C.A. (1993). Politics and control in

organizations. In: E.J. Lawler B.Markovsky. J.O’Brien & K. Heimer

(Eds), Advances in group process, 10, 83-111. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ferris, G.R., Fedor, D.B., Chachere, J.G.,& Pondy, L.R. (1989). Myths and

politics in organizational context. Group Organizational Studies, 14, 83-

103.

Ferris, G.R., Fedor, D.B., King, T.R. (1994). A political conceptualization of

managerial behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 1-34.

Ferris, G.R., Frink, D.D., Bhawuk, D.P.S., Zhou, J., & Gilmore, D.C.(1996).

Reactions of diverse groups to politics in the workplace. Journal of


Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In: R.

A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds). Impression management in the

organization, 143-170. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Ertbaum.

186

Ferris, G.R.,. Frink, D. D., Gilmore, D.C., & Kacmar, K.M. (1994).

Understanding as an antidote for the dysfunctional consequences of

organizational politics as a stressor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

24, 1204-1220.

Floyd,F.J., and Widman,K.F. 1995, "Factor Analysis in the development and refinement of clinical instrument", Psychological assessment, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 286-299.

Folger, R. & Greenberg, J. (1985) Procedural justice: An inter-pretive analysis of

personnel systems. In K. Rowland & G.Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel

and human resources management, 3, 141-183. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Folger, R. (1984). Perceived injustice, referent cognitions, and the concept of

comparison level. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 14, 88-

108.

Folger, R. (1987). Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace. Social

Justice Research, 1, 143-159.

Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In K. Murnighan (Ed.),

Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research, 161–

183). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource

management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M.A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive

justice on reactions to pay raise decision. Academy of Management

Journal, 32, 115-130.

Fornell,C. & Lacker,D,F. 1981, "Evaluating structrual equation model with unobservable variable and meaurement Error", Journal of Martketing Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39-50.

Fornell.c., &.C.J. 1994, "Partial Least Squares in Bagozzi.R.P.(Ed.)", Advanced methods of Marketing Research, .

French, J.R., Raven, B.H. (1959). The bases of social power. In: Cartwright D,

editor. Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan

Press, 150-67.

Frost, P.J. (1987). Power, politics, and influence. In: F.M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam,

K.H. Roberts & L.W. Porter, (Eds), Handbook of Organizational

Communication, 503-548. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Frost, P.J., & Hayes, D.C. (1983). An exploration in two cultures of a model of

political behavior in organizations. In R.W. Allen & L.W. Porter (Eds.),

Organizational influence process, 369-392. Glenview, IL: Scott, Forestman

and company.

187

Frost, S.E. (Ed.). (1972). Masterworks of philosophy, 1, 135-140. Boston:

McGraw-Hill.

Fryxell, G.E., & Gordon, M.E. (1989). Workplace justice and job satisfaction as

predictors of satisfaction with union and management. Academy of

Management Journal, 32, 851-866.

Galbraith, J. K. (1967). The New Industrial State. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Gandz, J., & Murray, V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics . Academy

of Management Journal, 23, 237-251.

Gangestad, S.W., & Synder, M., (2000). Self – monitoring: Appraisal and

reappraisal, Psychological Bulletin, 530-55.

Garcia, J.R.G. 2009, "10th International Digital Government Reserach Conference", Using Partial Leat Squares(PLS) for digital Governemt Reserach, pp. 357.

Gardner, W.L., & Martinko, M.J. (1988). Impression management in

organizations. Journal of Management, 14(2): 321-338.

Gardner, W.L., & Martinko, M.J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of Management, 14(2): 321-338.

Gefen,D.(December)2000, "E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust ", Omega, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 725-737.

Gibson, S.K. (2006), Mentoring of women faculty: The role of Organizational politics and culture. Innovative Higher Education, 31(1)

Gilliland, S.W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An

organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18,

694-734.

Gilliland, S.W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions

to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691-701.

Gilmore, D.D., & Ferris, G.R., Dulebohn, J.H.,& Harrell-Cook, G. (1996).

Organizational politics and employee attendance. Group & Organizational


Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.

American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.

American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

Grams, W.C., & Rogers, R.W. (1990). Power and personality: Effects of

machiavellianism, need for approval, and motivation on the use of

influence tactics. The Journal of General Psychology, 117, 71-82.

188

Gray, B., & Ariss, S. S. (1985), Politics and Strategic Change Across Organizational Life Cycle. Academy of Management Review, 10 (4), 707-723.

Greenberg, J. (1986). Differential intolerance for inequity from organizational

and individual agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 16, 191-196.

Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions:

Do the means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61.

Greenberg, J. (1988). The distributive justice of organizational performance

evaluations. In Bierhoff, H.W., Cohen, R.L., & Greenberg, J. (Eds.),

Justice in Social Relations, 337351. New York: Plennum.

Greenberg, J. (1989). Cognitive re-evaluation of outcome in response to

underpayment inequity. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 174-184.

Greenberg, J. (1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity:

The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568.

Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow.


Greenberg, J. (1993a). Stealing in the name of justice Informational and

interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81-103.

Greenberg, J. (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, 79-103. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Greenberg, J. (1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a

work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 288-297.

Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing sleep over organizational injustice: Attenuating

insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in

interactional justice. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 58-69. doi:

10,1037/0021-9010.91.1.58.

Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair

process effect in groups and organizations. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group

processes, 235-256. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Greenberg, J., & Scott, K.S. (1996). Why do workers bite the hand that feeds

them? Employee theft as a social exchange process. In B. M. Staw & L. L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research on organizational behavior, 18, 111-156.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

189

Griffeth, R.W., Vecchio, R.P., & Logan, J.W. (1989). Equity theory and

interpersonal attraction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 394-401.

Griffin, M. (2001). Job satisfaction among detention officers: Assessing the

relative contribution of organizational climate variables. Journal of

Criminal justice, 29, 219-232.

Griffin, M., Armstrong, G., & Hepburn, J. (2005). Correctional officers’

perceptions of equitable treatment in the masculinized’ prison environment.

Criminal Justice Review, 30, 189-206.

Grossi, E., Keil, T., & Vito, G. (1996). Surviving ‘the joint’: Mitigating factors

of correctional officer stress. Journal of Crime and Justice, 19, 103-120.

Gujarati, D. 1992, "Essential Economatrics", McGraw HILL,

Hackman , J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign, Reading , MA: Addison-

Wesley.

Hage, J., Aiken, M. (1967) . Relationship of centralization to other structural

properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 72-92.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hair, J., Jr., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. 1998. Multivariate data analysis, Fifth ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Harrell-Cook, G., Ferris, G.R., & Dulebohn, J. (1999). Political behaviors as

moderators of the perceptions of organizational politics–work outcomes

relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1093-1105.

Harris, K.J., James, M., & Boonthanom, R. (2005). Perceptions of organizational

politics and cooperation as moderators of the relationship between job

strains and intent to turnover. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 26-42.

Hauenstein, N.M.T., MeGonigle, T., & Flinder, S.W. (2001). A meta-analysis of

the relationship between procedural and distributive justice: Implications

for justice research. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13, 39-

56.

Helmreich, R.L. & Spence, J.T. (1978). The work and family orientation

questionnaire. JSAS catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8, 35

(ms#1677).

Hendrix, W., Robbins, T., Miller, J., & Summers, T.P. (1999, April). Procedural

and distributive justice effects on turnover. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

Atlanta, GA.

190

Hepburn, J. (1987). The prison control structure and its effects on work attitudes:

the perceptions and attitudes of prison guards. Journal of Criminal Justice,

15, 49-64.

Hepburn, J., & Knepper, P. (1993). Correctional officers as human service

workers: The effect of job satisfaction. Justice Quarterly, 10, 315-335.

Herrell-Cook, G., Ferris, G.R., & Dulebohn, J.H. (1999). Political behaviors as

moderators of the perceptions of organizational politics – work outcomes

relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1093-1106.

Hochwarter, W., Kiewitz, C., Castro, S., Perrewe, P., & Ferris, G. R. (2000).

Positive affectivity and collective efficacy as moderators of the relationship

between perceived politics and job satisfaction. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the Southern Management Association. Orlando, FL.

Hochwarter, W.A., Kolodinsky, R.W., Witt, L.A., Hall, A.T., Ferris, G.R., &

Kacmar, K.M. (2006). Competing perspectives on the role of

understanding in the politics perceptions – job performance relationsip: A

test of the “antidote” versus “distraction” hypotheses. In E.Vigoda-Gadot &

A. Drory (Eds.), Handbook of organizational politics, 271-285.

Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

Hochwarter, W.A., Perrew, P.L., Ferris. G.R., & Guercio. R. (1999)

Commitment as an anti-dote to the tension and turnover consequences of

organizational politics. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 277-297.

Hochwarter, W.A., Witt, L.A. & Kacmar, K.M. (2000). Perceptions of

organizational politics as a moderator of the relationship between

conscientiousness and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,

472-8.

Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of National Cultures in Fifty Countries and

Three Regions. In J.B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec & R.C. Annis (Eds.),

Expiscations in CrossCultural Psychology, 335-355. Lisse: Swets and

Zeitlinger.

Hofstede, G.(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work -

related values. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.

Hollinger, R.C., & Clark, J.P.(1983). Theft by employees. Lexington, MA:

Lexington Books.

Hom, P.W., Griffeth, R.W., & Sellaro, C.L. (1984). The validity of Mobley’s

(1977) model of employee turnover. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 34, 141-174.

191

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York:

Harcourt, Brace & World.

Hulin, C. L. (1991). Withdrawal, persistence, and commitment in organizations.

In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology, (2), 445-505. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Izraeli, D.N. (1975). The middle manager and the tactics of power expansion: a

case study. Sloan Management Review, 6, 57-70.

Izraeli, D.N. (1987). Sex effects in the evaluation of influence tactics. Journal

of Occupational Behavior, 8, 79-86.

Jermier, J.M., Knights, D., & Nord, W. (1994). Resistance and power in

organizations. London: Routledge.

Johnson, P. (1976). Woman and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness.

Journal of Social Issues, 32, 2, 99-110.

Joppe , M. 2001, "The Business Research Process", Retrieved on October 15,2010 from WWW.REYERSON.CA/~MJoppe/rp.htm, .

Kacmar, K. M. & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the

field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In G. R.

Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp.

1-40). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics

scale (POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 193-205.

Kacmar, K.M., & Carlson, D.S. (1997). Further validation of the Perceptions of

Politics Scale (POPS): A multi-sample approach. Journal of Management,

23, 627-658.

Kacmar, K.M., & Ferris, G.R. (1991). Perceptions of Organizational Politics

Scale (POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 51, 193-205.

Kacmar, K.M., & Ferris, G.R. (1993). Politics at work: Sharpening the focus of

political behavior in organization. Business Horizons, 36, 70-74.

Kacmar, K.M., Bozeman, D.P., Carlson, D. S., & Anthony, W. P. (1999). An

examination of the perceptions of organizational politics model: replication

and extension. Human Relations, 52(3), 383-416.

192

Kacmar, K.M., Carlson, D.S. (1994). Further validation of the perceptions of

politics scale (POPS): a multiple sample investigation. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, Texas.

Kanter, R. (1979) Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57, 65-75.

Kelley, K., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Sample size for multiple regression:

obtaining regression coefficients that are accurate, not simply significant.

Psychological Methods, 8, 305-321.

Kickul, J., Gundry, L.K., & Posing, M. (2005). Does trust matter? The

relationship between equity sensitivity and perceived organizational justice.

Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 205-218.

Kiel,M. ,Tan,B.C.,Y., Keewei,K.,Saarinen,T. 2000, "A cross cultural study on escalation of commitment behaviour in software projects", MIS Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 299-325.

Kimberly, J.R. (1981) Managerial Innovation. In: Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W.H., Eds., Handbook of Organizational Design, Oxford University Press, New York, Vol. 1, 84-104.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intra-organizational influence tactics: Exploration in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence

tactics: Exploration in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology.

65, 440-452.

Koberg, C.S. (1985). Sex and situational influences on the use of power: a follow

up study. Sex Roles, 13, 625-639.

Konovsky, M.A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on

business organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 49-511.

Konovsky, M.A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug

testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 76, 698-707.

Konovsky, M.A., & Pugh, S.D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social

exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656-669.

Konovsky, M.A., Folger, R. (1991). The effects of procedures, social accounts,

and benefits level on victims’ layoff reactions. Journal of Applied Social


Konovsky, M.A., Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1987). Relative effects of

procedural and distributive justice on employee attitudes, Representative

Research in Social Psychology, 17, 15-24.

193

Kotter, J. P. Power and Influence: Beyond Formal Authority. New York: Free Press, 1985.

Krathwohl, D. (ed) 1997, Methods of educational and social science;an integrated approach, 2nd edn, Addision Wesley Longman.

Kumar, P., & Ghadially, R. (1989). Organizational politics and its effects on

members of organizations, Human Relations, 42, 305-315.

Lam, S.S.K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between

organizational justice and employee work outcomes: a cross-national study.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 1-18.

Lambert, E. (2003). Justice in corrections: An exploratory study of the impact of

organizational justice on correctional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31,

155-168.

Lambert, E. (2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff.

Prison Journal, 84, 208-227.

Lambert, E., & Paoline, E. (2005). The impact of jail medical issues on the job

stress and job satisfaction of jail staff: An exploratory study punishment

and society. The International Journal of Penology, 7, 259-275.

Lambert, E., Barton, S., Hogan, N., & Clarke, A. (2002). The impact of

instrumental communication and integration on correctional staff. Justice

Professional, 15, 181-193.

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2003). The impact of work-family conflict

on correctional staff job satisfaction. American Journal of Criminal Justice,

27, 35-51.

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., Paoline, E., & Clarke, A. (2005). The impact of role

stressors on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment

among private prison staff. Security Journal, 18, 33-50.

Lambert, E., 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.

Lambert, E., Paoline, E., & Hogan, N. (2006). The impact of centralization and

formalization on correctional staff job satisfaction and organizational

commitment. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law,

and Society, 19, 23-44.

Lambert, E., Reynolds, M., Paoline, E., & Watkins, C. (2004). The effects of

occupational stressors on jail staff job satisfaction. Journal of Criminal and

Justice, 27,132.

194

Larwood, L., Wright, T.A., Desrochers, S., & Dahir, V. (1998). Extending latent

role and psychological contract theories to predict intent to turnover and

politics in business organizations. Group & Organizational Management,

23, 100-123.

Leary, M.R., & Kowalski, R.M. (1990). Impression management: A literature

review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 34-47.

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, 9, 91-131. New York: Academic Press.

Leventhal, G.S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New

approaches to the study of fairness in social relationship. In K. Gergen, M.

Greenber, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and

research, 27-55. New York: Plenum.

Leventhal, G.S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W.R., (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of

allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction,

167-218. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

Lind, E.A. (2001) Fairness heuristic theory: Justice Judgments as pivotal

cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano

(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice, 6-88. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice.

New York: Plenum.

Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 1297-1349. Palo Alto:

Consulting psychologists Press.

Longenecker, C., & Sims, H., & Gioia, D. (1987). Behind the mask; The politics

of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.

Lowe, R.H., & Vodanovich, S.J. (1995). A field study of distributive and

procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction and organizational

commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 99-114.

Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1985). Organizational behavior modification and

beyond. Glen-view, II: Scott, Foresman.

Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

195

Madison, D., Allen, R., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P., & Mayers, B. (1980).

Organizational politics: An exploration of managers’ perceptions. Human

Relations, 33, 79-100.

Madison, D., Allen, R., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P., & Mayers, B. (1980). Organizational politics: An exploration of managers’ perceptions. Human Relations, 33, 79-100.

Major, B., & Konar, E. (1984). An investigation of sex differences in pay

expectations and their possible causes, Academy of Management Journal,

27, 777-792.

Malik, M. E., Danish, R. Q., & Ghafoor, M. (2009). Relationship between Age,

Perceptions of Organizational Politics and Job Satisfaction. Journal of

Behavioural Sciences Vol, 19(1-2).

March, J.G. (1962). The Business Firm as a Political Coalition. Journal of

Politics, 24, 662-678.

Markham, W.T., Harlan, S.L., & Hackett, E.J. (1987). Promotion opportunity in

organizations: causes and consequences. In K.M. Rowland & G.R. Ferris

(Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management, 223-287.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Martin, C.L., & Bennett, N. (1996). The role of justice judgments in explaining

the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment .

Group and Organization Management, 21, 84-104.

Martz, C. & Campion, M. (1998). 25 years of voluntary turnover research: A

review and critique. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds), International

review of industrial and organizational psychology, 13. Chichester: New

York.

Maslyn, J.M., & Fedor, D.B. (1998). Perceptions of politics: Does measuring

different foci matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 645-653.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis-McClear, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, S. M. (2000).

Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures

and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 73

Masterson, S. S., Lewis-McClear, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, S. M. (2000).

Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair

procedures and treatment on work relationships . Academy of Management

Journal, 43, 73

Masterson, S.S. (2001). A trickle – down model of organizational justice:

relating employees’ and customers’ perceptions of and reactions to

fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 594 – 604.

196

Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M., & Taylor, M.S. (2000). Integrating

justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and

treatment on work relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-

748.

Matteson, M.T., & Ivancevich, J.M. (1987). Controlling work stress: Effective

human resource and management strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

Mayes, B.T., & Allen, R.W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational

politics. Academy of Management Review, 2, 672-678.

Mayes, B.T., & Allen, R.W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy of Management Review, 2, 672-678.

McFarlin, D.B., & Sweeney, P.D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as

predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes.


McFarlin, D.B., Frone, M., Major, B. & Konar , E. (1989). Predicting career-

entry pay expectations: The role of gender-based comparisons. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 3, 331-340.

Mendelsohn, S. (1994). The politics of information. Information world Review,

91,1-20.

Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 418-434.

Miles, R.H. (1980). Macro organizational behavior. Santa Monica, Cal,:

Goodyear publishing.

Miller, B. K., Rutherford, M. A., & Kolodinsky, R. W. (2008). Perceptions of

Organizational Politics: A Meta-Analysis of Outcomes. Journal of Business

and Psychology, 22(3), 209-222.

Mintzberg, H. (1979) . Organizational power and goals: A skeletal theory. In D.

Schendel & C. Hofer (Eds.), Strategic management: A new view of

business policy and planning, 143-171. Boston, M.A.: Little brown.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations . Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall. Mintzberg. H. (1985). The organization as political arena .

Journal of Management Studies, 22, 133-154.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around Organizations. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

197

Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of

Management Studies, 22(2), 133-154.

Mintzberg, H. 1983. Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Molm, L.D. (1997). Coercive power in social exchange Cambridge: Cambridge

Univ. Press. Moorman, R.H. (1991). Relationship between organizational

justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions

influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-

855.

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does organizational

support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational

citizenship behavior? A group value model explanation. Academy of Management

Journal, 41, 351-357.

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does organizational

support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and

organizational citizenship behavior? A group value model explanation.


Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived

organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice

and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal,

41, 351–357.

Moorman, R.H., & Blakely, G.L. (1995). Individualism – collectivism as an

individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142.

Moorman, R.H., & Byrne, Z.S. (2005). How does organizational justice affect

organizational citizenship behavior. In J. Greenberg, & J.A. Colquitt

(Eds.). The handbook of organizational justice, 355-380. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived

organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice

and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal,

41, 351-357.

Moorman, R.H., Organ, D.W., & Niehoff, B. P. (1991). Do fairness perceptions

influence employee citizenship? A report of two studies on the relationship

between three dimensions of organizational justice and organizations

citizenship behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Academy of Management, Miami.

198

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

organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence

employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.

Mossholder, K.W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C.L. (1998). A multilevel analysis of

procedural justice context. journal of organizational Behavior, 19, 131-

141.

Mossholder, K.W., Bennett, N., Kemery, E.R., & Wesolowski, M.A. (1998).

Relationships between bases of power and work reactions: The mediational

role of procedural justice. Journal of Management, 24, 533-552.

Mowday, R. T. (1978). The Exercise of Upward Influence in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(1), 137.

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee - organization

linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover . New

York: Academic press.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of

organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Musante, L., Gilbert, M.A., & Thibaut, J. (1983). The effects of control on

perceived fairness of procedures and outcomes. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 19, 223-238.

Naseer, S. (2009). Interactive effects of big fire personality traits and

organizational justice on personal outcomes. Unpublished MS thesis,

Faculty of Management Sciences, Interactional Islamic University,

Islamabad.

Nelson, D.L., & Burke, R.J. (2000). Women executives: Health, stress, and

success. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 107-127.

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

between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior.


Nye, L.G., & Witt, L.A. (1993). Dimensionality and construct validity of the

Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS). Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 53, 821-829. O’Connor, W.E., & Morrison,

T.G. (2001). A comparison of situational and dispositional predictors of

perceptions of organization politics. Journal of Psychology, 135: 301-312.

Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier

syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

199

Organ, D.W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship

behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in

organizational behavior, 12, 43-72. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Organ, D.W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants

of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,

157-164.

Organizational justice and performance as measured by 360-degree feedback.

Paper presented at the 14th Annual Convention of the American

psychological society, New Orleans, LA, June.

Paine, J.B. & Organ, D.W. (2000).The cultural matrix of organizational

citizenship behavior: Some preliminary conceptual and empirical

observations. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 45-59.

Pallant, J. (ed) 2001, SPSS Survival Manual 2001, 2nd edn, SPSS Inc. S.Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois USA. Pallant

Pallant, J. (ed) 2005, SPSS Survival Manual, 2nd edn, SPSS Inc. S.Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois USA.

Pallant, J. (ed) 2006, SPSS Survival Manual, xxvi edn, SPSS Inc. S.Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois USA.

Pallant, J. (ed) 2007, SPSS Survival Manual, 6th edn, SPSS Inc. S.Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois USA.

Pandarus, (1973). One’s Own Primer of Academic Politics, American Scholar,

42, 569592.

Parikh, I.J., Garg, P. (1990). Indian organizations: Value dilemmas in managerial

roles. In Management in Developing Countries, 175-190, Jaeger AM,

Kanungo RN (Eds.), Routledge: New York.

Park, O.S., & Sims, H.P., Jr. (1989). Beyond cognition in leadership: Prosocial

behavior and affect in managerial judgment. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, D.C.

Parker, C.P., Dipboye, R.L., & Jackson, S.L. (1995). Perceptions of

organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences.


Pettigrew, A. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making. London:

Tavistock.

Pfeffer J. (1992). Management with power Boston, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.

200

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and

maintenance of organizational paradigms. In: L., L. Cummings & B.M.

Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1-52. Greenwich. CT:

JAI Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing With Power: Politics and Influence in Organization.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Provis, C. (2004). Ethics and

Organisational Politics.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990).

Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in

leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership

Quarterly, 1(2), 107142.

Poon, J.M.L. (2003). Situational antecedents and outcomes of organizational

politics perceptions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 138-55.

Poon, J.M.L. (2004). Effects of Performance Appraisal Politics on Job

Satisfaction and Turnover Intention. Personnel Review, 33, 322-334.

Poon, J.M.L. (2006). Trust-in-Supervisor and helping coworkers: moderating

effect of perceived politics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 6, 518-

532.

Popular oxford new-age primary school dictionary. Oriental book society,

Ganpat road Lahore, Pakistan.

Porter, L.W. (1976). Organizations as political animals. Presidential address,

Division of Industrial Organizational Psychology, 84th Annual Meeting of

the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Porter, L.W., Allen, R.W., & Angle, H.L. (1981). The politics of upward

influence in organizations. In: L, L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds),

Research in organizational behavior, 3, 109-149. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Posthuma, R.A., Maertz, JR. C.P., & Dworkin, J.B. (2007). Procedural justice’s

relationship with turnover: explaining past inconsistent findings. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 28, 381-398.

Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement.

Marshfield, MA: Pittman.

201

Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J. Hinings, C.R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of

organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 65-105.

Ragins, B.R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A

longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51-88.

Rahim, M. A., & Buntzman, G. F. (1989). Supervisory power bases, styles of handling conflict with subordinates, and subordinate compliance and satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 123(2), 195-210.

Raja, U., Johns, G. & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on

psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350-367.

Ramanaiah, Byravan, A., & Detwiler, F.R.J., (1994). Revised neo personality

inventory, profiles of machiavellian and non-machiavellian people.

Psychological Reports, 937-38.

Randall, M.L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C.A., & Birjulin, A. (1999).

Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work

attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159-174.

Rawls, John. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press.

Riley, P. (1983). A structurationist account of political culture. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 28, 414-437.

Robbins, S.P., (1989) Coulter, M. Management, 7th edition, Agha Jee Printers,

Islamabad, Pakistan.

Robbins, S.P., Judge, T.A., & Sanghi, S. (2008). Organizational Behavior, 12th

edition, Saurabh printers, India.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd edn), Oxford, Blackwell.

Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange

relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational

justice. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925-946.

Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange

relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci

organizational justice. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision

Processes, 89, 925-946.

Rupp, D.E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange

relationships in predicting workplace outcomes form multifoci

202

organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 89, 925-946.

Ryan, A. (1993). Justice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power--and how they hold on to it: A strategic-contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 5(3), 2-21.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., 8 Thornhill, A. (2008). Research methods for business

students, 4th edition.

Schein, VE. (1977). Individual power and political behavior. Academy of

Management Review, 2, 64-72.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social

identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole

Publishing.

Sekran, U. Research methods for Business, 4th edition.

Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R.C. (1996). Social exchange in

organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange,

and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219-227.

Shapiro, D.L., Buttner, E.H., & Barry, B. (1994). Explanations: What factors

enhance their perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 58, 346-368.

Sheppard, B.H., Lewicki, R.J., & Minton, J.W. (1992). Organizational justice:

The search for fairness in the workplace. New York: Lexington Books.

Skarlicki, D.P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of

distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied


Skarlicki, D.P., & Latham, G.P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a

labor union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81, 161169.

Skarlicki, D.P., & Latham, G.P. (1997). Leadership training in organizational

justice to increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A replication.

Personnel Psychology, 50, 617-633.

Skarlicki, D.P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the

relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management

Journal, 42, 100108.

Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.

Smith, A. (2006). Know your adversary. HR Magazine, 51(5), 54-59.

203

Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational citizenship

behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-

663.

Smith, J., & Greneir, M. (1982). Sources of organizational power for woman:

Overcoming structural obstacles, Sex Roles, 8, 733-746.

Smith, M.M. (2005). Want to improve recognition and incentive programs? HR

Magazine, 50(9), 90-102.

Smither, J.W., Reilly, R.R., Millsap, R.E., & Pearlman, K. (1993). Applicant

reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49-76.

Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). Power and sample size in multilevel linear models. In

B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of statistics in behavioural

science (Vol. 3, pp. 1570-1573). Chicester: Wiley.

Spector, P. (1996). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and

practice. New York: John Wiley.

Stamper, C.L., Van Dyne L., (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship

behavior: a field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 22, 517-536.

Stepanski, K., Kershaw, T.S., & Arkakelian, A.(2000). Perceptions of Work

Politics: Meta-analytic investigation of individual differences and outcome

variables. Paper presented at the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans.

Stevens, C.K., & Kristof, A.L. (1995). Making the fright impression: A field

study of applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 587-606.

Stohr, M., Lovrich, N., Monke, B., & Zupan, L. (1994). Staff management in

correctional institutions: Comparing Dilulio’s ‘control model’ and

‘employee investment model’ outcomes in five jails. Justice Quarterly, 11,

471-497.

Sweeney, P.D., & McFarlin, D.B. (1993). Workers’ evaluation of the “ends” and

the “means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural

justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23-

40.

Sweeny, S.D., & McFarlin, D.B. (1997). Process and outcome: gender

differences on the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 18, 83-98.

204

Synder, M. (1974). Slef-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.

Synder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychology of self

– monitoring. New York, NY: Freeman.

Tabachnick,B.G.: Fidell,L.S., (ed) 2006, Using multivariate statistics, Pearson Education

Tabachnick,B.G.: Fidell,L.S., (ed) 2007, Using multivariate statistics, Pearson Education,

Tatum , B.C., Eberlin, R., Kottraba, C.& Bradberry, T. (2003). Leadership,

decision making, and organizational justice. Management Decision, 41,

1006-1016.

Tatum, B.C., Bradberry, T., Eberlin, R. and Kottraba, C. (2002).

Technology workers:Examination emprically the influence of Attitudes, Job characteritics, and External Markets", Journal of management Information systems, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 231-261.

Thatcher,J,B.,Stepina, and Boyle,R,J 2002-3, "Turnover of information

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

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thibaut, J.W., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law

Review, 66, 541-566.

Thompson, B. and Levitov, J. E. (1985). Using microcomputers to score and

evaluate test items. Collegiate Microcomputer, 3, 163-168.

Treadway, D. C, Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C,

Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. 2004. Leader political skill and

employee reactions. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 493-513.

Trevino, L. K. 1992. The Social Effects of Punishment in Organizations: A

Justice Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 17 (4), 647-676.

Turner, C.F., & Marinez, D.C. (1977). Socioeconomic achievement and the

Machiavellian personality. Sociometry, 40(4): 325-336.

Tushman, M.E. (1977). A political approach to organization: A review and

rational. Academy of Management Review, 2, 206-216.

Tushman, M.E. (1977). A political approach to organization: A review and rational. Academy of Management Review, 2, 206-216.

Tyler, T.R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group–

value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830-838.

205

Tyler, T.R. (1990). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and

compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tyler, T.R., & Bies, R.J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal

context of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social

psychology and organizational settings, 77-98. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.

Tyler, T.R., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on

satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 41, 642655.

Tyler, T.R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas:

Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for

authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482-497.

Tyler, T.R., & Lind, E.A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In

M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 25, 115-

191. San Diego: Academic Press. `

Tyler, T.R., Boeckmann, R., Smith, H.J., & Huo, Y.J. (1997). Social justice in a

diverse society, Boulder: Westview.

Tyler, T.R., Lind, E.A., Ohbuchi, K.I., Sugawara, L., & Huo, Y.J. (1998).

Conflict with outsiders: Disputing within and across boundaries.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 137-146.

Ullah, S., Jafri, A. R., & Dost, M. K. (2011). A synthesis of literature on

organizational politics. Far East Journal of Psychology and Business. 3(3),

36-49.

Valle, M. (1995). Individual determinants of organizational politics: perceptions

and action. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University,

Florida.

Valle, M., & Perrewe, P.L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political

behaviors? Tests of an implicit assumption and expanded model. Human

Relations, 53, 359-386.

Valle, M., & Witt, L.A. (2001). The moderating effect of teamwork perceptions

on the organizational politics-job satisfaction relationship. Journal of

Social Psychology, 141, 379-531.

Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E.A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of

fairness judgments. In M.P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology, 34, 1-60. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent

workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 692-703.

206

Van Rensselar, J. (2006). Walking the talk: Performance improvement company

designs cutting-edge incentive program for its own employees.

HRMagazine, 51(9), 88-100.

Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F., Link, B., & Wolfe, N. (1991). The impact of race

and gender on correctional officers’ orientation to the integrated

environment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28, 472-500.

Veroff, J. (1977). Process vs. impact of men’s and women’s achievement

motivation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1, 283-293.

Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational politics, job attitudes, and work outcomes:

Exploration and implications for the public sector. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 57, 326-347.

Vigoda, E. (2002). Stress-related aftermaths to workplace politics: the

relationships among politics, job distress, and aggressive behavior in

organizations. Journal of Organizational.

Vleeming, R.G. (1979). Machiavellianism: A preliminary review, psychological

reports, 295-310.

Vrendenbergh, D.J., Maurer, J.G. (1984). A process framework for

organizational politics. Human Relations, 37, 47-66.

Walster, E., Walster, G.W., & Berschied, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and

research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., & Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived organizational

support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective.


Weiss, H.M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions

on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 845, 786-794.

Welsh, M.A., & Slusher, E.A. (1986). Organizational design as a context of

political activity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 389-402.

Werner, S.& Ones, D.S.(2000). Determinants of perceived pay inequities: The

effects of “comparison other”, Charectistics and pay system

communication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1281-1309.

Wesolowski, M. A., & Mossholder, K. W. (1997). Relational demography in

supervisorsubordinate dyads: Impact on subordinate job satisfaction,

burnout, and perceived procedural justice. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 18, 351-362.

207

White, K.S., & Rowberry, S.H. (1977). Management a family affair. Atlantic

Economic Review, 27, 40-47.

Whitehead, J., & Lindquist, C. (1986). Correctional officer burnout: A path

model, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 23-42.

Wiley, M.G., & Eskilson, A. (1982). The interaction of sex and power base on

perceptions of managerial effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal,

25, 5, 671677.

Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational

commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role

behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

Wish, M., 1976. Comparisons among multidimensional structures of

interpersonal relations. Multivariate Behavioral Research July, 297-324.

Witt, L.A. (1998). Enhancing organizational goal congruence: A solution to

organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 666-674.

Witt, L.A. (1999). Enhancing organizational goal congruence: a solution to

organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 666–674.

Witt, L.A., Andrews, M.C, & Kacmar, K.M. (2000). The role of participation in

decision – making in the organizational politics –job satisfaction

relationship. Human Relations, 53, 341-358.

Witt, L.A., Treadway, D.C., & Ferris, G.R. (2004). The role of age in reactions

to organizational politics perceptions. Organizational Analysis, 12, 39-52.

Wright, K., Saylor, W., Gilman, E., & Camp, S. (1997). Job control and

occupational outcomes among prison workers. Justice Quarterly, 14, 524-

546.

YukI, G., & Tracey J.B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with

subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525-

35.

Zald, Mayer N . 1 970. Organizational Change: The Political Economy. of the YMCA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zaleznik, A. (1970). Power and Politics in Organizational Life. Harvard

Business Review, 48, 3, 47-60.

Zaleznik, A. (1970). Power and Politics in Organizational Life. Harvard Business Review, [online] (May June). Available at: https://hbr.org/1970/05/power-and-politics-in-organizational-life [Accessed 5 Jan. 2017].

Zargar, Abdul Majid. (2012, Oct. 12). Politicizing Education, Greater Kashmir

Srinagar News, Retrieved from

208

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Oct/12/politicizing- education-

18.asp.

Zhou, J., & Ferris, G.R. (1995). The dimensions and consequences of

organizational politics perceptions: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1747-1764.

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Oct/12/politicizing-%20education-18.asp

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Oct/12/politicizing-%20education-18.asp

209

Model Generated on SmartPLS

210

Model Generated on SmartPLS

211

Appendix A

212

213

214

215

216

Appendix B

217

218

219

220

221

Appendix C

222

SECTION A: PERSONAL PROFILE

1. Please tick one appropriate box.

i. Gender:

Male…………………….....

Female…………..................

ii. Marital Status:

Married……………………...

Single……….………………

vi. Occupation/Position:

Administration………..

Faculty ….....................

iii Age group:

(i) 20-29…………………....

(ii) 30-39…….......................

(iii) 40-49…………………..

v. Experience:

Less than 1 year…………..

2 to 10 years…………...…

11 to 20 years………….....

21 to 30 years…………….

iv. Education/Degree:

Bachelor degree...……….............

Master degree...............................

MPhil/ PhD degree.......................

223

Section A: Procedural justice The following items refer to the procedures used to arrive at your

(outcome).Are you fairly rewarded?

Q.

No

Question Statement Stron

gly

Disagr

ee

Disagre

e

Somewha

t disagree

Neithe

r

Agree

nor

Disagr

ee

Somewha

t agree

Agree Stron

gly

Agree

1 You are able to express your views and feelings

during those procedures?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 You have influence over the (outcome) arrived at by

those procedures?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 Those procedures been applied consistently? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 Those procedures are free of bias 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 Those procedures been based on accurate

information?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 You been able to appeal the (outcome) arrived at by

those procedures?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 Those procedures upheld ethical and moral

standards?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section B: Distributive justice The following items refer to your outcome. (Salary/Pay)

8 Your (outcome) reflect the effort you have put into

your work

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 Your (outcome) appropriate for the work you have

completed?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 Your (outcome) reflect what you have contributed to

the organization?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 Your (outcome) justified, given your performance? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12 Does your (outcome) reflect the effort you have put

into your work?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13 Your (outcome) appropriate for the work you have

completed?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section C: Interpersonal justice The following items refer to (the authority figure who perform the

procedure).

224

Q.

No

Question Statement Strongly

Disagre

e

Disagre

e

Somewha

t disagree

Neithe

r

Agree

nor

Disagr

ee

Somewha

t agree

Agree Stron

gly

Agree

14 Has (he/she) treated you in a polite manner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15 Has (he/she) treated you with dignity? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16 Has (he/she) treated you with respect? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 Has (he/she) refrained from improper remarks or

comments?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 Has (he/she) treated you in a polite manner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19 Has (he/she) treated you with dignity? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section D: Informational justice The following items refer to (the authority figure who perform the

procedure). To what extent:

20 He/ She has been honest in (his/her)

communications with you.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 He/she explained the procedures thoroughly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 The (his/her) explanations regarding the

procedures are reasonable.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23 He/ She communicated details in a timely

manner

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25 Communications to individuals' specific needs? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 Has (he/she) been honest in (his/her)

communications with you?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section E: Organizational citizenship Behavior

I Help others who have been absent.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I Voluntarily work for things that are not

required. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I Familiarize/Orient new people even though it is

not required. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I Help others who have heavy workloads.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I assist/ help out supervisors with his/her work.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I Make innovative suggestions to improve

departments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

225

Attends functions not required but that help

organization image. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am Punctual at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

For me Attendance at work is norm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I Help others who have been absent.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I Voluntarily work for things that are not

required. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I Familiarize/Orient new people even though it is

not required. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I Help others who have heavy workloads.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I assist/ help out supervisors with his/her work.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I Make innovative suggestions to improve

departments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Attends functions not required but that help

organization image. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am Punctual at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

For me Attendance at work is norm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

He/ She gives advance notice when unable to

come to work

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I Don’t take un necessary time off

work/absenteeism

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I Take undeserved work breaks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Coasts towards the end of the day. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I spentGreat deal of time with personal phone

Conversations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I Do not take extra breaks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I Do not spend time in idle conversation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section F: Organizational Politics

Favoritism is commonly accepted in this

university.

Faculty members are encouraged to speak. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Rewards come only to those faculty members

who work hard in this university.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/absenteeism#absenteeism__1

226

Pay and promotion policies manipulated

politically in this university.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Promotions generally go to the top performer in

this university.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Faculty members attempt to build themselves up

by tearing/putting others down in this university.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Faculty members usually don't speak up in fear of

revenge by boss in this university.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Faculty members usually don't speak up in fear

of revenge by rival group in this university.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Organizational politics plays vital role in transfer

and postings in this university.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Incase employee(s) perceive his/her right are

being violated or deliberately delayed ,then

she/he reports to the political group to develop

political pressure to get issue resolved/settled.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section G: Job involvement

The most important things that happen to me

involve my present job.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To me, my job is only a small part of who I am. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am very much involved personally in my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I live, eat and breathe my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Most of my interests are centered around my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I have very strong ties with my present job which

would be very difficult to break.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Usually I feel detached from my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Most of my personal life goals are job-oriented. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I consider my job to be very central to my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I like to be really involved in my job most of the

time

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section H : Job Satisfaction

I receive appreciation for well-done job

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel close to the people at work

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

227

I feel good about working at this university

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel secure about my job.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I believe management is concerned about me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

On the whole, I believe work is good for my

physical health. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

My wages are good.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

All my talents and skills are used at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I get along with my supervisor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section I : Organizational Commitment

I am willing to put in a great deal of effort

beyond that normally expected in order to help

this university be successful

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I talk about this university to my friends as a

great university to work for.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I would accept almost any type of job

assignment in order to keep working for this

university

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I find that my values and the university 's values

are very similar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am proud to tell others that I am part of this

university

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This university on really inspires the very best

in me in the way of job performance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am extremely glad that I chose this university

to work for over others I was considering at the

time I joined

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I really care about the fate/success of this

university

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

For me, this is the best of all possible

university for which to work

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section J : Work Related Burnout

228

My work is emotionally exhausting. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel burnt out because of my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

My work frustrates me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel worn out at the end of the working day. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I exhausted in the morning at the thought of another

day at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel that every working hour is exhausting for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I have enough energy for family and friends during

holidays

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section K : Turnover Intension

1 often thinks of leaving the university. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It is very possible that I will look for a new job next

year.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

If I may choose again, I will choose to work for the

current university.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7