Organizational justice perception

The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 10, 200924© 2009 IUP. All Rights Reserved.

Organizational Justice Perceptionsas Predictor of Job Satisfaction

and Organizational CommitmentKuldeep Kumar*, Arti Bakhshi** and Ekta Rani***

The present study explores the relationship between perceived organizationaljustice, job satisfaction and organizational commitment, using a field sample.The results indicate that distributive justice is significantly related to jobsatisfaction while procedural justice is not. Also, both distributive justice andprocedural justice are found to be significantly related to organizationalcommitment. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.

IntroductionOrganizational justice perceptions have received great attention from researchersand scholars and have been researched frequently in the field ofindustrial-organizational psychology, human resource management andorganizational behavior (Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997). Research onorganizational justice perceptions, which focuses on the role of fairness in theworkplace, has shown that these perceptions strongly affect the attitude ofworkers—job satisfaction, turnover intentions, organizational commitment, andworkplace behavior such as absenteeism and organizational citizenship behavior(Colquitt et al., 2001). In addition, research has also demonstrated the linkagesbetween perceived organizational justice and individual work performance (Earleyand Lind, 1987; and Colquitt et al., 2001). Although the associations between justiceperceptions and various work outcomes are well established in Western literature,very few studies have examined the relationship of justice perceptions with workattitude and work behavior in the Indian culture. A number of studies showed thatculture does influence justice perceptions of the employees and is an importantdeterminant of the impact that justice perceptions have on various work outcomes.Tyler and his colleagues (Lind and Tyler, 1988; and Tyler et al., 1997) proposed thatprocedural justice concerns are ubiquitous across diverse societal and culturalsettings. Cross-cultural research on procedural justice has recently begun (Lindand Earley, 1992; Lind et al., 1997; and Brockner et al., 2000). The first question

* UGC Research Fellow, PG Department of Psychology, University of Jammu, Jammu180001, India. E-mail: [email protected]

** Associate Professor, PG Department of Psychology, University of Jammu, Jammu 180001,India. E-mail: [email protected]

*** Lecturer, Department of Commerce, Trikuta Degree College, Jammu 180001, India.E-mail: [email protected]

25Organizational Justice Perceptions as Predictor of Job Satisfactionand Organizational Commitment

addressed by cross-cultural procedural justice researchers is whethernon-Westerners (i.e., collectivists) care about procedural justice issues as well(e.g., LaTour et al., 1976). Similarly, Sugawara and Huo (1994) found that theJapanese show a strong concern for procedural justice in conflict resolutions. Whiteet al., (1995) reported that Korean subjects reveal concerns about proceduraljustice, although their concerns are lower than those of American subjects. Thepresent study aims to find the relationship between justice perceptions, jobsatisfaction and organizational commitment, and attempts to fill that research gap.It provides a brief review of the conceptualization of the construct of organizationaljustice before reviewing the specific research questions explored here.

Perceived Organizational JusticeWhen employees react to the way they are treated at work, their motivation torespond cannot be understood adequately without taking into account perceivedfairness of the outcomes and the procedures used to reach these outcomes(Greenberg, 1986; and Folger and Konovsky, 1989). The organizational justiceconstruct has been partitioned into at least three factors—distributive justice,procedural justice, and interactional justice. Adams (1965) conceptualized fairnessby stating that employees determine whether they have been treated fairly at theworkplace or not by comparing their own payoff ratio of outcomes (such as pay orstatus) to inputs (such as effort or time), to the ratio of their co-workers. This iscalled distributive justice and it presents employees’ perceptions about the fairnessof managerial decisions relative to the distribution of outcomes such as pay,promotions, etc., (Folger and Konovsky, 1989). In contrast, procedural justicefocuses on the fairness of the manner in which the decision-making process isconducted (Folger and Konovsky, 1989). In other words, the focus shifts from whatwas decided to how the decision was made (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). As athird concept, interactional justice reflects the quality of interpersonal treatmentduring the implementation of formal procedures of decisions (Bies and Moag, 1986).

Distributive JusticeBefore 1975, the study of justice was primarily concerned with distributive justice.Much of this research was derived from initial work conducted by Adams (1965),who used a social exchange theory framework to evaluate fairness. According toAdams, what people were concerned about was not the absolute level of outcomesper se but whether those outcomes were fair or not.

While Adams’s theory advocated the use of an equity rule to determine fairness,several other allocation rules have also been identified, such as equality and need(e.g., Leventhal, 1976). Studies have shown that different contexts (e.g., work vs.family), different organizational goals (e.g., group harmony vs. productivity), anddifferent personal motives (e.g., self-interest motives vs. altruistic motives), canactivate the use or primacy of certain allocation rules (Deutsch, 1975). Nevertheless,

The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 10, 200926

all the allocation standards have as their goal the achievement of distributive justice;they merely attempt to create it through the use of different rules.

Procedural JusticeThibaut and Walker’s (1975) research on individuals’ reactions to disputeresolution procedures led to the development of the procedural justice theory,which is concerned with judgments about the process or means by which allocationdecisions are made. Although Thibaut and Walker (1975) introduced the conceptof procedural justice, their work focused primarily on disputant reactions to legalprocedures. Leventhal and his colleagues can be credited for extending the notionof procedural justice into nonlegal contexts such as organizational settings(Leventhal, 1980; and Leventhal et al., 1980). In doing so, Leventhal and hiscolleagues also broadened the list of determinants of procedural justice far beyondthe concept of process control. Leventhal’s theory of procedural justice judgmentsfocused on six criteria that a procedure should meet if it is to be perceived as fair.A procedure should (a) be applied consistently across people and time; (b) befree from biases (e.g., ensuring that a third party has no vested interest in aparticular settlement); (c) ensure that accurate information is collected and usedin making decisions; (d) have some mechanism to correct flawed or inaccuratedecisions; (e) conform to personal or prevailing standards of ethics or morality,and (f) ensure that the opinions of various groups affected by the decision havebeen taken into account.

Interactional JusticeBies and Moag (1986) introduced the most recent advance in the justice literatureby focusing attention on the importance of the quality of the interpersonal treatmentpeople receive when procedures are implemented. Bies and Moag (1986) referredto these aspects of justice as “interactional justice.” More recently, interactionaljustice has come to be seen as consisting of two specific types of interpersonaltreatment (e.g., Greenberg, 1990a). The first, labeled interpersonal justice, reflectsthe degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect, byauthorities or third parties involved in executing procedures or determiningoutcomes. The second, labeled informational justice, focuses on the explanationsprovided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in acertain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion.

Justice perceptions have also been linked to important outcome variables(Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Dailey and Kirk, 1992; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992;and Martin and Bennett, 1996). For instance, perceptions of procedural justiceare negatively related to intentions of quitting (Dailey and Kirk, 1992), significantlycorrelate with organizational commitment (Folger and Konovsky, 1989; and Martinand Bennett, 1996), and produce high subordinates’ evaluation of supervisors(McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992). In other words, if employees perceive that the


decision-making process is fair, they are less likely to form an intention of quitting.On the other hand, distributive justice perceptions are associated with pay raisesatisfaction (Folger and Konovsky, 1989), and tend to be a strong predictor ofjob satisfaction (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992; and Martin and Bennett, 1996).Greenberg (1990b) also reported that organizational justice, which refers topeople’s perceptions of the fairness of treatment received from organizations, isimportant as a basic requirement for the effective functioning of organizations.

Job SatisfactionJob satisfaction or employee satisfaction (also referred to as morale) is oneof the most used variables in organizational behavior. It is an employee’sattitudinal response to his/her organization. As an attitude, job satisfactionis conceptual ized as consisting of evaluative, cognitive and affectivecomponents.

The Evaluative Component: An individual’s overall response to the employingorganization is summarized in the evaluative component. It represents dislike vs.like for the organization.

The Cognitive Component: An individual’s perceptions, opinions, beliefs andexpectations regarding the organization are the focus of his/her cognitions.Employees hold cognitions about each of the four major inducement systems.Cognitions in which the individual perceives that his/her expectations have beenmet generally, lead to positive evaluations. Additionally, positive evaluations aremore likely when cognitions (expectations) support a positive and secure futurewith the organization.

The Affective Component: This represents the feeling evoked by the organization.Does thinking about and association with the organization evoke pleasurable oruncomfortable feelings, feelings of anger or joy, feelings of security or stress, feelingsof affirmation or invalidation? In general, a positive effect results from information,feedback, and situations that affirm or reinforce the individual’s self-worth andself-concept, while a negative effect is evoked by invalidating situations. Self-worthis validated when individuals feel accepted as valued members of the organizationand their competencies and core values are affirmed. When individuals are in apositive state while working, they tend to evaluate the organization positively.

Organizational CommitmentOrganizational commitment has been identified as a critical factor in understandingand explaining work-related behavior of employees in organizations. Mostdefinitions of organizational commitment describe the construct in terms of theextent to which an employee identifies with and is involved with an organization(Curry et al., 1986). For example, Steer (1977) defined organizational commitmentas the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a


particular organization. Mowday et al., (1979) defined organizational commitmentas an affective response which moves beyond passive loyalty to an organization.Porter et al., (1974) identified three related factors of organizational commitment—a strong belief in an organization’s goals and values; a willingness to exertconsiderable effort for the organization; and a strong desire to maintain membershipin the organization. Meyer and Allen (1991) argued that the psychological statesreflected in these different definitions of organizational commitment are not mutuallyexclusive. They referred to these states as components of organizationalcommitment. These include affective commitment (emotional attachment),continuance commitment (cost-based), and normative commitment (obligation).Mathieu and Zajac (1990) noted that the various definitions and measures share acommon theme in that organizational commitment is considered to be a bond or linkingof an individual to an organization.

Hypothesized Relationship Between PerceivedOrganizational Justice, Organizational Commitment,and Job SatisfactionMany studies also ask about employees’ satisfaction with their jobs in general.

McFarlin and Sweeney (1992) showed that distributive justice is a more powerful

predictor of job satisfaction than procedural justice. Distributive justice, however,

is a better predictor of personal outcomes such as pay satisfaction. However, this

does not seem to fit the two-factor theory argument that procedural justice predicts

system-referenced outcomes, whereas distributive justice predicts person-

referenced outcomes. In addition, Masterson et al., (2000) showed procedural justice

to be a stronger predictor of job satisfaction than interactional justice, although

both had significant independent effects. Organizational commitment represents

a global systemic reaction that people have to the company for which they work.

Perceived organizational justice is an important predictor of job satisfaction as

well as organizational commitment. One reason for this could be that the use of

fair procedures in decision making provides evidence of a genuine caring and

concern on the part of the organization for the well-being of the employees (Lind

and Tyler, 1988). This, in turn, motivates the employees to continue their association

with their current organization. Thus, in this research, it was hypothesized that if

the employees perceived both distributive justice and procedural justice to be high,

they would be more motivated to continue their association with their current institutions

and would show higher job satisfaction levels.

H1: Distributive justice will positively relate to job satisfaction;

H2: Procedural justice will positively relate to job satisfaction;

H3: Distributive justice will positively relate to organizational commitment; and

H4: Procedural justice will positively relate to organizational commitment.


Methodology

SampleThe sample for the present study consisted of 128 employees working in medicalcolleges. A 67.36% response rate (128 out of 190 possible respondents) was obtained.The gender composition of the sample was 61.72% male (N = 79) and 38.28% female(N = 49). The average age of the respondents was 30.40 years (SD = 3.25).On average, respondents had worked in their present jobs for 32.05 months(SD = 25.31).

VariablesControl Variable: Age, Gender and Job Tenure;

Predictor Variable: Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice; and

Criterion Variable: Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment.

Measurements

Distributive Justice Index

Perceptions of distributive justice will be measured with the Distributive JusticeIndex, developed by Price and Mueller (1986). A sample item states, “My supervisorhas fairly rewarded me when I consider the responsibilities I have”. All reliabilitiesreported have been above 0.90, and the scale has shown discriminant validity inrelation to job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Moorman, 1991).

Procedural Justice Scale

Perceptions of procedural justice will be measured using the 15-item scale developed byNiehoff and Moorman (1993). A sample item states, “Job decisions are made by mysupervisor in an unbiased manner”. Reliability of above 0.90 has been reported.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction was measured using the job satisfaction scale developed by Singhand Sharma (1999). The scale consists of 30 items and each item has fivealternatives; the respondent has to choose one option which candidly expresseshis response. The mean score of all the items represent the job satisfaction levelof the individual employee. A sample item states, “With regard to post retirementbenefits like pension, gratuity, etc., I rate my job as ...”. The test-retest reliability ofthe scale is reported to be 0.978 with N = 52 and a gap of 25 days.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment was measured by the nine-item short version of theOrganizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Porter et al., (1974).There is a seven-point response dimension. A sample item states, “I talk up thisorganization to my friends as a great organization to work for”. Item scores are summedand the mean is taken. Thus, there is a possible range of scores from one to seven, and


the higher the score, the more organizationally committed an individual is judged to be.Reliability and validity evidence has been provided by Porter et al., (1974), Stone andPorter (1975), Steers (1977), and Steers and Spencer (1977). The coefficient alpha isconsistently high in the studies, ranging from 0.82 to 0.93, with a median of 0.90.

ResultsTable 1 lists the means, SDs, intercorrelations, and reliabilities for the variables.The correlations among some of the study variables provided initial support for ourhypotheses. In support of H1, distributive justice was positively correlated with jobsatisfaction (r = 0.61, p < 0.01). In addition, procedural justice was positivelycorrelated with job satisfaction (r = 0.59, p < 0.01), supporting H2. Distributive justicewas also positively correlated with Organizational commitment (r = 0.91, p < 0.01),supporting H3. Finally, procedural justice was positively correlated withOrganizational commitment (r = 0.60, p < 0.01), supporting H4.

Table 1: Means, SDs, Intercorrelations, and Coefficient Alphasfor the Study Variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4

Age 30.40 3.25 – – – –

Gender 0.61 0.48 – – – –

J T 32.05 25.31 – – – –

1. DJ 23.37 4.38 (0.82) – – –

2. PJ 61.85 7.18 0.66* (0.86) – –

3. JS 74.16 8.82 0.61** 0 .59** (0.83) –

4. OC 33.29 8.29 0.91** 0.60** 0.51** (0.89)

Note: JT = Job Tenure (in months completed); DJ = Distributive Justice; PJ = ProceduralJustice; JS = Job Satisfaction; OC = Organizational Commitment; N = 128;

* p < 0.05; and ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

To test our hypotheses, we performed a hierarchical regression analysis foreach of the outcome variables (i.e., job satisfaction and Organizational commitment).Our goal was to determine if the hypothesized variables made a unique contributionto the prediction of the criterion above and beyond the control variables. As such,we first entered the control variables. Second, we entered distributive justice andprocedural justice. To control potential demographic effects, we included age, genderand job tenure as control variables. In the description of our results, all reportedcoefficients are standardized and adjusted R2s are reported.

R2 is the measure of how much of the variability in the outcome variable isaccounted for by the predictors. For Model 1, its value is 0.436; this means thatcontrol variables (age, gender and job tenure) account for 43.6% of the variationin job satisfaction. However, for Model 2, this value increases to 0.557 or 55.7% of


the variation in job satisfaction. Table 2 shows that, as a set of predictors,distributive justice and procedural justice explained an additional 12% of variancein the criterion, over and above the control variables (F = 16.52, p < 0.01).Specifically, as shown in Table 3, distributive justice significantly related to jobsatisfaction (= 0.32, p < 0.01), supporting H1. Table 3 also shows that proceduraljustice was not found to relate to job satisfaction (= 0.11, p > 0.1), providing nosupport for H2.

As shown in Table 4, R2 forModel 1 is 0.935; this means thatcontrol variables (age, gender andjob tenure) account for 93.5% ofthe variation in Organizationalcommitment. However, for Model 2,this value increases to 0.953 or95.3% of the variation in jobsatisfaction. Thus, as a set ofpredictors, distributive justice andprocedural justice explained anadditional 1.7% of variance in thecriterion, over and above thecontrol variables (F = 21.95,p < 0.01). Specifically, as shown inTable 5, distr ibutive justicesignif icantly related toOrganizational commitment(= 0.42, p < 0.01), supporting H3.It also shows that proceduraljustice was found to relate toOrganizational commitment(= 0.10, p < 0.01), supporting H4.

Table 2: Hierarchical Regression for Job Satisfaction, Control Variablesand Perceived Organizational Justice (Distributive and Procedural)

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 R2 Change

1 0.661a 0.436 0.423 0.436**

2 0.746b 0.557 0.538 0.120**

Note: N = 128; ** p < 0.01;

a = Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Job Tenure; and

b = Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Job Tenure, Procedural Justice,Distributive Justice.

Note: N = 128; and ** p < 0.01.

‘SE b’ is standard error of b and b is thecoefficient.

Table 3: Beta Results for Job Satisfaction,Demographic Characteristics

and Perceived Organizational Justice(Distributive and Procedural)

Model b SE b

Step 1

Constant –16.03 10.47

Gender 9.10 2.13 0.50**

Age 2.82 0.32 0.04**

Job Tenure –0.03 0.03 –0.10

Step 2

Constant 14.77 10.80

Gender 11.92 2.29 0.67**

Age –0.62 0.67 –0.23

Job Tenure –0.02 0.03 –0.06

Distributive Justice 2.69 0.51 0.32**

Procedural Justice 0.14 0.12 0.11


Note: N = 128; and ** p < 0.01.

‘SE b’ is standard error of b and b is thecoefficient.

Table 5: Results for OrganizationalCommitment, Demographic Characteristics

and Perceived Organizational Justice(Distributive and Procedural)

Model b SE b

Step 1

Constant –40.54 3.32 –

Gender –0.03 0.68 –0.002

Age 2.42 0.10 0.95**

Job Tenure 0.008 0.10 0.03

Step 2

Constant –51.08 3.32 –

Gender 0.25 0.70 –0.02

Age 3.62 0.21 0.42**

Job Tenure 0.002 0.009 0.006

Distributive Justice –0.782 0.156 0.42**

Procedural Justice –0.12 0.04 0.10**

DiscussionThe present study attempted atlinking perceived organizationaljustice with job satisfaction andOrganizational commitment.Distributive justice was found to bepositively related to both jobsatisfaction and Organizationalcommitment. Consistent with thisprediction, McFarlin and Sweeney(1992) found that distributivejustice was a more importantpredictor of what they termed two‘personal outcomes’ (paysatisfaction and job satisfaction),and that procedural justice was amore important predictor of two‘organizational outcomes’(organizational commitment andsubordinates’ evaluation ofsupervisor). Other studies(Wesolowski and Mossholder, 1997;and Mossholder et al., 1998) haveshown high correlations between

procedural justice and job satisfaction. In addition, Masterson et al., (2000) showedprocedural justice to be a stronger predictor of job satisfaction than interactionaljustice, although both had significant independent effects.

In addition, procedural justice was not found to be related to job satisfactionbut it was significantly related to Organizational commitment. Prior work by Tyler

Table 4: Hierarchical Regression for Organizational Commitment, ControlVariables and Perceived Organizational Justice

(Distributive and Procedural)

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 R2 Change

1 0.967a 0.935 0.934 0.935**

2 0.976b 0.953 0.951 0.017**

Note: N = 128; ** p < 0.01;

a =Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Job Tenure; and

b =Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Job Tenure, Procedural Justice,Distributive Justice.


(1990) argues that procedural justice has stronger relationships with support forinstitutions than distributive justice. However, we should note that several studieshave supported the distributive dominance model instead. For example, Lowe andVodanovich (1995) found a stronger relationship between distributive justice andorganizational commitment than for procedural justice, as did Greenberg (1994).

Theoretical and Practical ImplicationsThe present study has attempted to explore the relationship between perceived

organizational justice, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

Theoretically, the current results suggest that Organizational justice perceptions

play an important role in the development of organizational commitment and job

satisfaction. Perceived organizational justice was expected to correlate significantly

with both job satisfaction and Organizational commitment. Those who perceive

justice in their organization are more likely to feel satisfied with their job and less

likely to leave the same. The current study will provide administrators and policy

makers with insights into the relationship between perceived organizational justice

and work attitudes, the formations of employees’ justice perceptions, how to manage

employees using organizational justice perspective, and how to draw positive

attitudinal and behavioral reactions from them. The present study will help them

better understand how to retain valuable employees, increase employees’

commitment to and satisfaction with their work, reduce employee turnover, and

improve the performance of the employees.

LimitationsLike all research, there are limitations to this study that must be taken intoconsideration. First, the data was cross-sectional in nature and this restrictionprevents the inference of causality. At a minimum, a longitudinal design is requiredto infer any causality that may exist among these variables. Second, the resultsmay have been affected by common method variance because all our data wascollected from self-report measures. Since the measures come from the samesource, any defect in that source may contaminate the measures, presumably inthe same fashion and in the same direction. A primary concern of common methodvariance is that the relationships observed between variables may be due to themeasurement method, rather than the hypothesized relationships between theconstructs (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). However, Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) hadsuggested that one possible technique that could be used to reduce commonmethod variance is to reorder the items on the questionnaire such that dependentor criterion variable follows, rather than precedes, the independent variable. Thismethod was followed in the design of our questionnaire. Finally, the effect sizesfor the relationships of interest were relatively small. This suggests the possibilityof unknown moderators or mediator variables on the perceived Organizationaljustice-commitment-job satisfaction relationship. Organizational variables such as


job characteristics, rewards, and other contextual variables may be of particularrelevance because each of these variables is a potential antecedent ofOrganizational commitment and job satisfaction. Unfortunately, data was notcollected with regard to possible moderators or mediators because such hypotheseswere beyond the scope of this study.

References1. Adams J S (1965), “Inequity in Social Exchange”, in Berkowitz L (Ed.), Advances

in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 267-299, Academic Press,New York, USA.

2. Bies R J and Moag J (1986), “Interactional Justice: Communication Criteria ofFairness”, in Lewicki R J, Sheppard B H and Bazerman M (Eds.), Research onNegotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1, pp. 43-55, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, USA.

3. Brockner J, Chen Y R, Mannix E A et al. (2000), “Culture and Procedural Fairness:When the Effects of What You Do Depend on How You Do It”, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 138-159.

4. Colquitt J A, Conlon D E, Wesson M J et al. (2001), “Justice at the Millennium:A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 3, pp. 425-445.

5. Cropanzano R and Greenberg J (1997), “Progress in Organizational Justice:Tunneling Through the Maze”, in C Cooper and Robertson I (Eds.), InternationalReview of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp. 317-372, Wiley,New York, USA.

6. Curry J P, Wakefield D S, Price J L and Mueller C W (1986), “On the CausalOrdering of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 847-858.

7. Dailey R C and Kirk D J (1992), “Distributive and Procedural Justice asAntecedents of Job Dissatisfaction and Intent to Turnover”, Human Relations,Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 305-317.

8. Deutsch M (1975), “Equity, Equality and Need: What Determines Which ValueWill Be Used as the Basis of Distributive Justice?”, Journal of Social Issues,Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 137-150.

9. Earley P C and Lind E A (1987), “Procedural Justice and Participation in TaskSelection: The Role of Control in Mediating Justice Judgments”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 1148-1160.

10. Folger R and Cropanzano R (1998), Organizational Justice and Human ResourcesManagement, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London, UK.

11. Folger R and Konovsky M A (1989), “Effects of Procedural and DistributiveJustice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 115-130.


12. Greenberg J (1986), “Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance

Evaluations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 340-342.

13. Greenberg J (1990a), “Employee Theft as a Reaction to Underpayment Inequity:

The Hidden Cost of Pay Cuts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, No. 5,

pp. 561-568.

14. Greenberg J (1990b), “Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow”,

Journal of Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 399-432.

15. Greenberg J (1994), “Using Socially Fair Treatment to Promote Acceptance

of a Work Site Smoking Ban”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, No. 22,

pp. 288-297.

16. Kang D (2007), “Perceived Organisational Justice as a Predictor of Employees’

Motivation to Participate in Training”, Research and Practice in Human Resource

Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 89-107.

17. LaTour S, Houlden P, Walker L and Thibaut J W (1976), “Procedure: Transnational

Perspectives and Preferences”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 86, pp. 258-290.

18. Leventhal G S (1976), “The Distribution of Rewards and Resources in Groups

and Organizations”, in Berkowitz L and Walster W (Eds.), Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 91-131, Academic Press, New York,

USA.

19. Leventhal G S (1980), “What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? New

Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships”, in Gergen K,

Greenberg M and Willis R (Eds.), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and

Research, pp. 27-55, Plenum Press, New York, USA.

20. Leventhal G S, Karuza J and Fry W R (1980), “Beyond Fairness: A Theory of

Allocation Preferences”, in Mikula G (Ed.), Justice and Social Interaction

pp. 167-218, Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.

21. Lind E A and Earley P C (1992), “Procedural Justice and Culture”, International

Journal of Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 227-242.

22. Lind E A and Tyler T R (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice,

Plenum Press, New York, USA.

23. Lind E A, Tyler T R and Huo Y (1997), “Procedural Context and Culture: Variation

in the Antecedents of Procedural Justice Judgments”, Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 767-780.

24. Lowe R H and Vodanovich S J (1995), “A Field Study of Distributive and

Procedural Justice as Predictors of Satisfaction and Organizational

Commitment”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 10, No.1, pp. 99-114.


25. Martin C L and Bennett N (1996), “The Role of Justice Judgments in Explainingthe Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment”,Group & Organizational Management, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 84-104.

26. Masterson S S, Lewis K, Goldman B M and Taylor M S (2000), “IntegratingJustice and Social Exchange: The Differing Effects of Fair Procedures andTreatment on Work Relationships”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43,No. 4, pp. 738-748.

27. Mathieu J E and Zajac D M (1990), “A Review and Meta-Analysis of theAntecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, No. 2, pp. 171-194.

28. McFarlin D B and Sweeney P D (1992), “Distributive and Procedural Justice asPredictors of Satisfaction with Personal and Organizational Outcomes”, Academyof Management Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 626-637.

29. Meyer J P and Allen N J (1991), “A Three-Component Conceptualization ofOrganizational Commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1,No. 1, pp. 61-89.

30. Moorman R H (1991), “Relationship Between Organizational Justice andOrganizational Citizenship Behaviors: Do Fairness Perceptions InfluenceEmployee Citizenship?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, No. 6,pp. 845-855.

31. Mossholder K W, Bennett N and Martin C L (1998), “A Multilevel Analysis ofProcedural Justice Context”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, No. 2,pp. 131-141.

32. Mowday R T, Steers R M and Porter L W (1979), “The Measurement ofOrganizational Commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14, April,pp. 224-247.

33. Niehoff B P and Moorman R H (1993), “Justice as a Mediator of the RelationshipBetween Methods of Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship Behavior”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 527-556.

34. Porter L W, Steers R M, Mowday R T and Boulian P V (1974), “OrganizationalCommitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, No. 5, pp. 603-609.

35. Price J L and Mueller C W (1986), Handbook of Organizational Measurement,Pittman, Marshfield, MA, USA.

36. Salancik G R and Pfeffer J (1977), “An Examination of Need-SatisfactionModels of Job Attitudes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, September,pp. 427-456.

37. Singh A and Sharma T R (1999), Manual for Job Satisfaction Scale, NationalPsychological Corporation, Agra, India.


38. Steers R M (1977), “Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 46-56.

39. Steers R M and Spencer D G (1977), “The Role of Achievement Motivation inJob Design”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 472-479.

40. Stone E F and Porter L W (1975), “Job Characteristics and Job Attitudes:A Multivariate Study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 57-64.

41. Sugawara I and Huo Y J (1994), “Disputes in Japan: A Cross-Cultural Test of theProcedural Justice Model”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 129-144.

42. Thibaut J and Walker L (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis,Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA.

43. Tyler T R (1990), “Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy,and Compliance”, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA.

44. Tyler T R, Boeckmann R J, Smith H J and Huo Y J (1997), Social Justice in aDiverse Society, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA.

45. Wesolowski M A and Mossholder K W (1997), “Relational Demography inSupervisor Subordinate Dyads: Impact on Subordinate Job Satisfaction,Burnout, and Perceived Procedural Justice”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 351-362.

46. White M M, Tansky J A and Baik K (1995), “Linking Culture and Perception ofJustice: A Comparison of Students in Virginia and South Korea”, PsychologicalReports, Vol. 77, No. 33, pp. 1103-1112.

Reference # 02J-2009-10-02-01

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Documents

Organizational justice perception