2nd International Conference on Business Innovation, Economics, Law, Social Sciences & Humanities (ICBELSH) June 18th, 2014 ~ Kuala Lumpur

‘Organizational Justice as Moderator in the Relationship between Job Performance Factor and Career Satisfaction’

Saraih, Ummi NaiemahCollege of Business

Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM)ndolphin03@yahoo.com

Ali, Hassan

College of BusinessUniversiti Utara Malaysia (UUM)

hassan@uum.edu.my 

Khalid, Shaiful AnnuarFaculty of Business ManagementUniversiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM)

shaiful@uitm.edu.my

Introduction (Cont) ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to examine the r/ship between Job

Performance (JP) factors and employees’ intrinsic Career Advancement (CA).

In addition, this study attempts to explore the roles of OJ as moderator in the relationship between JP factors and employees’ intrinsic CA in the context of Malaysia.

In particular, this study investigated the roles of distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice as moderators in the relationship between JP factors (e.g. TP, OCB) and teachers’ CS.

The data was gathered through mail survey method from 390 respondents. First, the result showed that teachers’ TP was significantly related to

teachers’ CS. Second, this study found that all factors of justice were the predictor to

teachers’ CS. Also, the results found that there was a significant interaction between

teacher’s ratings of OCB and distributive justice to teachers’ CS.

INDEX TERMS: Career Satisfaction (CS), Task Performance (TP), Organizational Citizenship

Behaviour (OCB), Organizational Justice (OJ)

Introduction (Cont) Career Definitions: Patton & McMahon (2006) ~ Career provides the opportunity for social

meaning in an individual’s action. Young & Valach (1996) ~ acknowledge that the term people use to refer to

career may vary. Watts (1981b) ~ Career has a rich ambiguity.

CA Definitions:• Seiber & Kraimer (2001): • Zhou & Zhou (2008):

CA Components:• Extrinsic CA (promotion, pay): • Intrinsic CA (career satisfaction, job satisfaction):

Carmeli, Shalom & Weisberg (2007) ~ Although promotion may appear as a major indicator for measuring the extrinsic component of CA.

Gattiker & Larwood (1989) ~ Individuals evaluation towards their own success was the criteria that was often more subjective and linked to personal satisfaction with their jobs.

Ferris & Judge, 1991 ~ how people perceive and evaluate the concept of career attainment within them; and how people perceive the expectation of other people on them is still important.

Introduction (Cont)

In Malaysia, teachers’ performance is very important because it is the primary criteria that will be taken into consideration in determining teachers’ CA (PSDM, 2002).

Although the core business for the Malaysian teachers is to engage them with teaching and learning (Malakolunthu & Malek, 2008), however they are also expected to guide students to behave into good moral behavior (Mohd Syahrom, 2009).

The combination of both TP and OCB of teachers may become important in realizing Malaysia’s aspiration towards the development of its first class human capital.

This study intends to contribute to the current literature by including OJ as a moderator in the relationship between TP and OCB to CS.

Why to conduct this study:• It will enhance our knowledge regarding the impact of JP (e.g. TP,

OCB) on employees’ intrinsic CA (e.g. CS), particularly in the Malaysian educational context.

Literature Review (Cont)Examinations of the empirical works reveal different predictors of CA such

as gender roles (Akhtar, 2010), mentoring (Okurame & Balogun, 2005), career commitment (Ballout, 2009), career aspiration (Feldman & Bolino, 1996), cognitive ability (Dreher & Bretz, 1991), acquisition of social capital (Metz & Tharenou, 2001), and political behavior (Judge & Bretz, 1994).

In more recent years, several scholars (Bergeron, 2005; Carmeli et al., 2007) propose the factor of OCB as a predictor of CA.

Previous researchers (e.g. Bergeron, 2005; Carmeli et al., 2007) present the inconsistent link between OCB and CA in their studies.

A few empirical investigations addressing CA in Malaysia have been reported (Ismail, Kho Khian Jui & Zainal Shah, 2011; Ismail & Arokiasamy, 2007; Mat Zin, Ngah, Ismail, Ahmad Tajuddin, Abdullah & Salleh, 2010; Poon, 2004; Zainal, 2009).

However, there is still lack of evidence regarding the influence of TP and OCB on individuals’ intrinsic CA.

Literature Review (Cont)Bergeron (2005) conducted the study that involved with 1,004 academicians from 69 private & public universities in UK. •Bergeron (2005) referred CA to promotion & speed to CA (extrinsic CA). All data were obtained in the perspectives of employees.

Results presented that all dimensions of TP (e.g. research TB, teaching TB, service TB) were positively and negatively related to CA (e.g. promotion, speed to CA).Results presented that four dimensions of OCB (e.g. research OCB, advising OCB, service OCB, professional service OCB) were positively and negatively related to CA (e.g. promotion, speed to CA).

Literature Review (Cont)Carmeli et al. (2007) conducted a study to investigate the effects of TP & OCB on employees’ CA that involved with respondents from both service & non service organizations in Israel. •CA is measured based on extrinsic CA (career mobility) & intrinsic CA (promotion prospect). All data were obtained in the perspectives of employers.

Results showed that TP is associated with career mobility and promotion prospects. Results presented that there were no significant r/ship between OCB (e.g. altruism, compliance) to level of employees’ CA (e.g. career mobility, promotion prospect).

Although TP was found as a predictor to CA; however, there were inconsistent results regarding the r/ship between OCB and CA.

Literature Review (Cont)Career Advancement (CA)

Zhou & Zhou (2009) - indicate that CA is one of the objectives that all employees are looking forward throughout their career.

Zainal (2009) - there are a wide range of definitions of career used by various researchers.

Judge, Cable, Boudreau & Bretz (1995) - the real or perceived achievement of individuals that have accumulated from their work experiences.

Task Performance (TP)Borman & Motowidlo (1993) - the effectiveness with which job

incumbents perform activities that contribute to the organization’s technical core.

Williams & Anderson (1991) - the extent an employee fulfills the formal requirements of the essential job duties.

Literature Review (Cont)Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)Organ (1988) - individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or

explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, but in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization.

DiPoala et al. (2004) - OCB is a useful term to describe voluntary and discretionary teacher behaviors that go the ‘extra mile’ to help students and colleagues succeed and that are not performance expectations of their official role.

Organizational Justice (OJ)Colquitt (2001) - in broad terms, OJ refers to perceived fairness of

interactions between employees and the organization.Distributive justice refers to employee’s perception towards the rewards that

he/she receives including promotion and incentives (Adams, 1965). Procedural justice refers to the perceptions of the employees regarding the procedures and process of gathering rewards (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Interactional justice is referred to the fairness of the interpersonal treatment that is received during all allocation decision (Bies & Moag, 1986).

Theoretical Framework

Task PerformanceIntrinsic CA

(Career Satisfaction)

IV DVMV

OCB

OJ(Distributive)(Procedural)

(Interactional)

Methodology (Cont)POPULATION & SAMPLE SIZE:√ The respondents of this research include all teachers from all primary

schools in Kedah. [Population=17,467, Sample=375].

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: √ Simple random sampling technique (Table of Random Numbers).

DATA COLLECTION: √ Teachers Questionnaires ~ mailed to 900 randomly selected teachers

DATA ANALYSIS: √ Frequency, descriptive, factor, reliability, correlation, hierarchical

multiple regression, split regression analyses

Methodology

PART

VARIABLES DIMENSIONS NUMBER OF ITEM

A Demographics

Gender, Race, Qualification, Age, Year of First Appoinment as Teachers, Year of First Confirmation as Tecahres, Total Years of Teachers’ Experience after Confirmation

7

B CA Intrinsic (career satisfaction) - Greenhaus et al. (1990)

5

C

D

Task Performance

OCB

Developed based on AWPR Form

DiPoala et al. (2004)

14

12

E OJ Distributive - Colquitt (2001)Procedural - Colquitt (2001)Interactional - Colquitt (2001)

688

INSTRUMENTATION & MEASUREMENT

Data Analysis & Research Findings (Cont)• Response Rate – 390 of returned questionnaires’ cases constituted as the

sample of this study. Effective Response Rate: 43.33%.Cohen et al. (2007), the response rate for mail survey which is more than

40% is considered as good. The total number of usable questionnaires for analysis; that is, 390 is

greater than what is suggested by Krejcie and Morgan (1970) as cited by Sekaran (2003).

• Factor Analysis - The results suggest that all scales used in this study measure the proposed constructs appropriately except for the OJ variable. Other variables such as CS, TP, & OCB revealed that only 1 single factor had emerged for this analysis. The number of factor emerged were consistent with the dimension of variables as first proposed by the researcher in this study.

• Although OJ had been measured in 4 dimensions as suggested by Colquitt (2001), this study revealed that OJ in the context of the Malaysian teachers only related with 3 dimensions (e.g. interactional, distributive & procedural justice).

•14

β t p R2 R2∆ F Change

Model 1 - Main Effect .04 - 8.43

Task Performance .22 3.45 .00*

OCB -.03 -.42 .68

Model 2 – Moderators .17 .13 16.07

Interactional Justice .21 4.40 .00*

Distributive Justice .28 6.02 .00*

Procedural Justice .13 2.76 .01*

Model 3 - Two Way Interactions .21 .04 9.07

Task Performance * Interactional Justice -.07 -1.16 .25

Task Performance * Distributive Justice 0.5 .70 .48

Task Performance * Procedural Justice 0.7 1.27 .21

OCB * Interactional Justice .05 .72 .47

OCB * Distributive Justice .11 1.66 .01*

OCB * Procedural Justice .05 .91 .36

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

Data Analysis & Research Findings (Cont)REGRESSION ANALYSIS ~ Results of hierarchical multiple regression evaluating the effects of self-ratings of TP and OCB on CS

H1a TP will be significantly related to teachers’ CS. Supported

H1b OCB will be significantly related to teachers’ CS. Not Supported

•15

MAIN EFFECTS : Relationship between TP and OCB to CS

Data Analysis & Research Findings (Cont)

MODERATOR EFFECTS: Relationship between OJ and CSH2a There is significant relationship between procedural justice and CS. Supported

H2b There is significant relationship between distributive justice and CS. Supported

H2e There is significant relationship between interactional justice and CS. Supported

INTERACTING EFFECTS : Interacting effects of OJ with TP and OCB on CSH3a Teachers’ procedural justice moderates the relationship between TP and CS. Not Supported

H3b Teachers’ distributive justice moderates the relationship between TP and CS. Not Supported

H3e Teachers’ interactional justice moderates the relationship between TP and CS. Not Supported

H4a Teachers’ procedural justice moderates the relationship between OCB and CS. Not Supported

H4b Teachers’ distributive justice moderates the relationship between OCB and CS. Supported

H4e Teachers’ interactional justice moderates the relationship between OCB and CS. Not Supported

Conclusions (Cont)R/SHIP BETWEEN TP & OCB TO CS• Significant r/ship between teachers’ TP (β=.22, p=.00*) & CS. No significant r/ship between teachers’

OCB (β=-.03, p=.68) & CS. • TP & CS - Consistent with the findings of Carmeli et al. (2007) who find that TP is the only predictor of

employees’ intrinsic CA in the term of promotion prospects. • OCB & CS - In line with the findings of Carmeli et al. (2007) who believed that OCB (e.g. altruism &

compliance) did not show any significant r/ship with employee’s intrinsic CA. OJ AS MODERATOR IN THE R/SHIP BETWEEN TP & OCB TO CS• Significant r/ships between teachers’ perceived OJ and CS. In detail, distributive justice is the most

significant predictor of teachers’ CS with the value of β=.28 and p=.00*, followed by interactional justice (β=.21, p=.00*), and procedural justice (β=.13 p=.01*).

These findings are in line with Bagdadli et al. (2006) who found that OJ in the factors of distributive justice and procedural justice are significantly associated with CS.

This finding is in line with the results of Jamali and Nejati (2009) study who found that the enhancement of the interactional justice factor can decrease the barriers for CA among academicians in the Iranian society.

• Although the findings of this study proved that there is no interaction between TP and any factor of perceived OJ to teachers’ CS, this study reveals that there is a significant interaction between OCB and distributive justice to teachers’ CS (β=.11, p=.01*),.

This study is consistent with the study of Hemdi and Nasurdin (2007) who indicate that distributive justice perception is significantly related to OCB.

Lacking of interactional justice and procedural justice in the Malaysian educational setting. •16

Conclusions (Cont)PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY• Should enforce the perception that although there is no direct influence of

the positive evaluation of OCB on teachers’ CS; however, in a longer term, TP must be beneficial for teachers specifically in increasing the level of their CS.

• Should improve the appearance of all dimensions of justice in school environment.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY ~ Social Exchange Theory (SET) By relying on SET, previous scholars (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001) claim

that if employee perceives that there is OJ (input), he will reciprocates to increase his performance (outcome) in the social exchange relationship; and the performance from the employee will benefit the organization in return.

‘If teachers perceived that there is distributive justice through the CS process as an inputs, then he will reciprocates to increase the level of his OCB as an outcome in the social exchange relationship’. Therefore, his performance will benefit the organization in exchange.

Conclusions LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH• A similar study should be conducted in other educational institutions in Malaysia &

should be expanded to include a comparison among teachers from both primary & secondary schools.

• The generalization of the findings is limited by the single organization data only (e.g. primary schools). The study needs to be replicated in different institutions in the Malaysian public education setting (e.g. Secondary Schools, Teaching Institutes, & Public Universities) since they might have different cultures and environments that contribute to the CA domain.

• This study is limited by the set of performance factors that are proposed to be linked to the single factor of intrinsic CA category (e.g. career satisfaction).

• This study is limited by the variable of TP that has been developed based on the AWPR Forms; and OCBSS as introduced by DiPoala et al. (2004).

• Future studies should employ methodological triangulation by using qualitative methods, involving participant observations, and using in-depth interview methods. These methods are ways to get in depth and comprehensive information. Personal interviews might have different results when subjects are not likely to respond to survey methods.

Publications• Saraih, U. N., Ali, H., & Khalid, S. A. (2013). The Roles of Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour on Teachers’ Career Advancement, International Conference on Education and Social Sciences (ICEASS), September 2013, Singapore.

• Saraih, U. N., Ali, H., & Khalid, S. A. (2014). Task Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) as Predictors of Career Satisfaction’, International Review of Social Sciences, Vol. 2 (2).

Thank You

Variables N Mean SD Minimum Maximum

CS 390 3.56 0.67 2.00 5.00

TP 390 7.20 1.13 4.00 10.00

OCB 390 4.06 0.40 2.92 5.00

Interactional Justice 390 4.01 0.55 2.25 5.00

Distributive Justice 390 3.81 0.64 1.00 5.00

Procedural Justice 390 3.70 0.58 1.25 5.00

•20

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS: Means, SD, minimum and maximum

Data Analysis & Research Findings (Cont)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Interactional Justice -

2. Distributive Justice .28** -

3. Procedural Justice .27** .00 -

4. TP .26** .08 .05 -

5. OCB .30** .09 .09 .62** -

6. CS .33** .29** .13* .20** .11* -

INTER-CORRELATION BETWEEN VARIABLES

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)