pj-1615
Post on 27-Oct-2014
10 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: DO FAIRNESS
PERCEPTIONS INFLUENCE EMPLOYEE CITIZENSHIP?
by
NOURA FAROUK TABBARA
A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Business Administration to the Suliman S. Olayan School of Business
to the American University of Beirut
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: DO FAIRNESS
PERCEPTIONS INFLUENCE EMPLOYEE CITIZENSHIP?
by
NOURA FAROUK TABBARA
Approved by: ______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Yusuf Sidani, Associate Professor First Reader Suliman S. Olayan School of Business ______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Yehia Kamel, Assistant Professor Second Reader Suliman S. Olayan School of Business Date of project presentation: June 10, 2010
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT
PROJECT RELEASE FORM
I, Noura Farouk Tabbara √ authorize the American University of Beirut to supply copies of my project to libraries or
individuals upon request. do not authorize the American University of Beirut to supply copies of my project to
libraries or individuals for a period of two years starting with the date of the thesis/dissertation/project defense.
____________________ Signature
____________________ Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My recognition and gratitude are addressed to Dr. Sidani & Dr. Kamel for their support and help.
Special thanks to my family and friends who supported me through my MBA journey
and who provided me with their unconditional love.
v
AN ABSTRACT OF THE PROJECT OF
Noura Farouk Tabbara for Master of Business Administration
Major: Business Administration Title: Relationships Between Organizational Justice And Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: Do Fairness Perceptions Influence Employee Citizenship?
The aim of this research is to study the relationship between Organizational Justice and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The main question is: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? The project starts with a brief literature review of past research done on the subject and other related subjects.
Chapter II starts with a definition of Organizational Justice along with its three dimensions: Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice. Next, a view of the major factors that influence Justice Perceptions such as Organizational Outcomes, Organizational Practices and the Characteristics of the perceiver is depicted. Then a list of the outcomes of Justice Perceptions that have been mostly researched in the past years is presented among which is OCB which is the outcome of interest to our study.
Chapter III outlines the research’s methodology. It begins with an overview of the sample under study. It describes the measures used in the questionnaire to assess OCB, Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction. Following that, it identifies the tools used to analyze the data collected and submit the results of the analysis.
In Chapter IV, there is a discussion of the findings of the study in terms of the hypotheses that are supported by the testes conducted and it compares same to previous literature.
Finally, Chapter V points out the limitations of the study, the managerial implications and the recommendations for future research on the subject.
vi
CONTENTS Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS …………..………………………………...
iv
ABSTRACT …..……………………………………………………………
v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………..
II. LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………
A. What is Organizational Justice? ………………………………...
1. Distributive Justice …….……………………………….. 2. Procedural Justice ……………..……………………….. 3. Interactional Justice …………………………………….
B. Factors Influencing Justice Perceptions ………………………...
1. Organizational Outcome ……………………………….. 2. Organizational Practices ……………………………….. 3. Characteristic of the Perceiver ………………………….
a. Demographic Characteristics …………………... b. Personality Traits ……………………………….
C. Outcomes of Justice Perceptions ……………………………….
1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior …………………... 2. Work Performance ……………………………………... 3. Counterproductive Work Behavior and Withdrawal
Behavior ………………………………………………... 4. Attitudinal and Affective Reaction toward Specific
Outcomes, the Organization and the Supervisor ……….. 5. Organizational Commitment …………………………... 6. Organizational Trust …………………………………… 7. Turnover Intentions ……………………………………..
D. Distributive & Procedural Justice as predictors of Job
Satisfaction ……………………………………………………...
E. The Influence of cognitive and affective based Job Satisfaction
1
2 2
3 3 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 9 9
10
11
12 12 13 13
14
vii
measures on the relationship between Satisfaction and OCB…...
F. Hypotheses ……………………………………………………...
III. METHODOLOGY ………………………………………….. A. Participants and Settings ………………………………………..
B. Measures ………………………………………………………..
1. Organizational Justice …………………………………. 2. Job Satisfaction ………………………………………… 3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior …………………..
C. Data Analyses and Results ……………………………………..
1. Frequencies …………………………………………….. 2. Factor Analysis ………………………………………… 3. Reliability ……………………………………………… 4. T-Test ………………………………………………….. 5. Regression Analysis ……………………………………
IV. DISCUSSION ………………………………………………. A. Job Satisfaction & OCB ……………………………………….
B. Organizational Justice & OCB …………………………………
C. Organizational Justice & Job Satisfaction ……………………..
D. Procedural Justice & Distributive Justice ………………………
V. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………… A. Limitations ……..……………………………………………….
B. Managerial Implications ………………………………………..
C. Future Research …………………………………………………
15
15
17
17
17
17 18 18
19
19 19 21 22 23
25
26
26
27
27
29
29
29
30
viii
Appendix
I. TABLE 1: DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRIBUTES OF THE STUDY SAMPLE …………………………………..
II. TABLE 2: FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR OCB……..
III. TABLE 3: FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ……………………....
IV. TABLE 4: FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR JOB
SATISFACTION………………………………………….…..
V. QUESTIONNAIRE ………………………………………… BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………..
31
33
38
43
45
49
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this research is to study the effect of Organizational Justice on Organizational
Citizenship Behavior and Job Satisfaction. The main question is: Whether Organizational
injustice will affect employee citizenship or not? The project starts with a brief literature review
of past research done on the subject and other related subjects.
Chapter II starts with a definition of Organizational Justice along with its three
dimensions: Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice. Next, a view of the
major factors that influence Justice Perceptions such as Organizational Outcomes,
Organizational Practices and the Characteristics of the perceiver is depicted. Then a list of the
outcomes of Justice Perceptions that have been mostly researched in the past years is presented
among which is OCB which is the outcome of interest to our study.
Chapter III outlines the research’s methodology. It begins with an overview of the sample
under study. It then describes the measures used in the questionnaire to assess OCB,
Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction. Following that, we identify the tools used to analyze
the data collected and submit the results of the analysis.
In Chapter IV, there is a discussion of the findings of the study in terms of the hypotheses
that are supported by the testes conducted and it compares same to previous literature.
Finally, in Chapter V it points out the limitations of our study, the managerial
implications and the recommendations for future research on the subject.
2
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. What is Organizational Justice?
Organizational justice is best described as the role of fairness that is directly related to the
workplace. In recent years, the study of work-place justice has been growing. Even though
research on justice began with Adams (1963,1965), most of the organizational justice research
was not published until 1990.
Research on justice started with Adams’s work on Equity Theory. In his Equity Theory,
Adams (1963, 1965) studied distributive justice which is the perceived fairness of outcomes. But
study shifted from distributive justice to procedural justice in the following years, because
Adam’s theory did not explain fully how people really reacted to perceived injustice (Crosby,
1976; Folger, 1984). Consequently, the interest in procedural justice grew and so did research of
the subject. The reason of interest in distributive justice was that findings showed that the
process implemented in allocating or distributing rewards was sometimes more important than
the rewards themselves. In the meantime, another type of justice, interactional justice, emerged
that required additional study (Bies & Moag, 1986). It involves the relationship between the
authorities in the organization, who are implementing the procedures, and the employees. So
basically, it is related to the way the supervisors communicate with their subordinates and the
way they treat them.
In summary, organizational justice is the fairness of the organization’s rewards, procedures
and treatment of employees. Three sources of organizational justice are usually named:
3
1. Distributive Justice
As mentioned earlier, the concept of organizational justice stemmed from Adam’s (1963,
1965) research on distributive justice. Adam expected distributive justice to influence the
organization as a whole since it was the related to the perception of the fairness of organizational
outcome. From there on, researchers started to study the influence or impact of distributive
justice on several organizational outcomes such as pay satisfaction, promotion opportunities and
work performance (Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Some even went as far as studying the
cognitive, affective and behavioral reactions of employees to specific organizational outcomes.
There studies showed that perceptions of injustice of certain organizational outcomes will affect
the employees’ emotions, cognitions and behaviors (Adams, 1965; Austin & Walster, 1974;
Walster et al., 1978; Weiss, Suckow, & Cropanzano, 1999).
2. Procedural Justice
Previous research in social psychology emphasized mainly on the results of reward
allocation. However; recent study shifted its emphasis on the procedures adopted in allocating
the organizational rewards. (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut& Walker, 1975). Accordingly, a co-
determinant, of organizational justice emerged that was procedural justice, which some
considered to be as important as distributive justice if not more important in determining
organizational justice (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Moreover, Lind & Tyler (1988) suggested that when
procedures stand for principles that are normatively accepted by people then procedural justice
will prevail. On the other hand, Leventhal (1980) came up with six rules that if followed will
4
lead to procedures that are perceived as fair by the employees. The six rules can be summarized
as follows:
a. Consistency rule, which dictates that procedures adopted in allocating rewards must be
consistent over time and among all employees.
b. Bias-Suppression rule, which dictates that decision-makers’ own self-interest should be
suppressed during the process of allocating of rewards.
c. Accuracy rule, which dictates that the information used during the process of allocating of
rewards must be accurate.
d. Correctability rule, which dictates that authorities in the organization should take action to
reverse decisions that turn out to be unfair.
e. Representativeness rule, which dictates that a true representation of the employees’ needs
and values should be considered during the allocation process.
f. Ethicality rule, which dictates that the process of reward allocation should be well-suited and
coherent with the employees’ basic moral and ethical values.
Similar to distributive justice, and since the procedures adopted by the organization
correspond to the manner in which allocation of rewards takes place in the organization, a strong
relation was also predicted between procedural justice and cognitive, affective, and behavioral
reactions of employees (Martin & Bennett, 1996; Mossholder, Bennett, Kemery, & Wesolowski,
1998a).
However, contrary to distributive justice, reactions to perceived procedural injustice are
predicted to be aimed at the organization itself and not the outcome or the person implementing
the procedure (Cropanzano & Folger, 1991; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993).
5
3. Interactional Justice
Since organizational practices involve a human factor, which is the behavior of the
implementer of the procedures in the organization, interactional justice is assumed to be a branch
of procedural justice. In view of the above, qualities such as politeness, honesty and respect,
which are the basis of the communication process between the direct organizational authority
and employee, are also predicted to be crucial and contributing factors to interactional justice
(Bies & Moag, 1986; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Moreover, interactional justice is also related to the
employee reactions mentioned in distributive justice and procedural justice which are namely
cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions but these reactions are not directed towards the
organizational outcomes nor towards the organization as a whole, but to the direct supervisors of
the employees (Bies & Moag, 1986; Cropanzano & Prehar, 1999; Masterson, Lewis-Mcclear,
Goldman, & Taylor, 2000).
Consequently, it is predicted that an employee will react negatively against the direct
supervisor, when he/she perceives any sort of interactional injustice, as opposed to negatively
reacting against the organization or the organizational outcome itself (Cropanzano & Prehar,
1999; Masterson et al., 2000).
Of course the above predictions on interactional justice are considered as true if and only
if the employee perceives that the source of injustice is the person implementing the procedures
and not the procedures themselves. However, if the employee believes that the person
implementing the procedure is part of the procedure, then the employee will perceive procedural
injustice (Bies & Moag, 1986).
6
B. Factors Influencing Justice Perceptions
It is believed that justice perceptions are influenced by three factors (1) organizational
outcomes, (2) organizational practices, and (c) characteristics of the perceiver (Cohen-Charash &
Spector, 2001).
1. Organizational Outcomes
Commitment of organizations to rules such as equity and equality will lead to perceptions
of distributive justice among employees. However, since the employees’ perceptions of justice
depend on whether the outcome is positive or negative for them, then justice in this case is said
to be an egocentric bias. (Greenberg, 1994; Messick & Sentis, 1979).
2. Organizational Practices
Commitment of organizations to procedures that allow employees to have their say in
decisions will definitely affect perceptions of procedural justice (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut &
Walker, 1978). Moreover, if the employees are treated well and an explanation was given to
them by their direct supervisors when needed, then this will also affect perceptions of
interactional justice (Bies & Moag, 1986). Accordingly, when the employee is treated with
respect and dignity, then interactional justice will be greater than when treated with disrespect
and in a rude manner, even if the outcome and the procedure implemented are the same.
7
3. Characteristics of the Perceiver
Another factor that might also influence the justice perceptions of the employee is the
employee’s characteristics themselves. These characteristics can be either demographic in nature
or traits in his/her personality:
a. Demographic characteristics.
Egocentric bias will also play a role in this case, since characteristics such as the gender,
age and race of the perceiver will influence his/her justice perceptions (Kulik, Lind, Ambrose, &
MacCoun, 1996). That is, employees will prefer and definitely perceive outcomes and
procedures that are beneficial for them as fair. For instance, an action plan that is positive and
beneficial to a certain group of people with the same demographic characteristics will be
perceived as fair as opposed to an action plan that the same group does not benefit from.
Nevertheless, justice perceptions cannot solely be explained by the interest of the same
demographic group, since another factor that plays an important role is the circumstance in
which the perceiver is in. So, making generalizations about specific demographic group
preferences is inaccurate and same demographic groups not necessarily share the same interest or
experience (Bauer, 1999; Crosby, 1984; Heilman, McCullough,&Gilbert, 1996; Major, 1994;
Truxillo & Bauer, 1999).
On the other hand, Leventhal and Lane (1970) predicted that males and females have
different perceptions of equity, in that males were more concerned with their personal benefit
regarding the allocation of rewards, while females were interested in the benefit of the whole
group. Moreover, another discrepancy between males and females was found by Brockner and
8
Adsit (1986) which was their reactions to unfair situations, where males were found to usually
react more powerfully than females do.
Finally, Major and Adams (1983) documented in their findings regarding the differences
between genders in terms of allocation of reward two reasons why perceptions of females differ
from that of males. The first reason is that what females expect is totally different from what
males expect from reward allocation. The second reason is that females evaluate their inputs to
the organization differently than the way males do.
Many explanations were given on gender differences regarding the perception of fairness,
but the truth is that the matter is much more complicated to be explained by one perspective or
the other, as different views exist and will always exist.
b. Personality traits:
These traits can be considered as:
Either, a link among how employees perceive matters to be just or not, to the way they
react upon their perceptions (Skarlicki, Folger,&Tesluk, 1999)
Or, they main factor that determines how employees react if they perceive justice or
injustice (George, 1991)
Or, control variables (Folger & Konovsky, 1989)
Wanberg, Bunce, & Gavin (1999) are some of the rare researchers who theorized that
personality might be very much related to the perception of justice. Wanberg (1999) for instance,
hypothesized that people who usually experience negative emotions for a long period of time and
on several occasions (i.e people who have a strong negative affectivity trait) are more prone to
consider or even perceive the situations they are in to be unjust as opposed to people who have a
9
weak negative affectivity treat. A similar explanation was also given by Irving and Coleman
(1999), who in turn said that people with high negative affectivity trait are most likely to
perceive things to be negative and accordingly they are most likely to perceive organizational
outcome and procedures as negative or unjust.
C. Outcomes of Justice Perceptions
Greenberg (1990b) suggested in his work that perceptions of Organizational Justice will
definitely justify several work-related behaviors. Some of the behaviors that might be based on
the employees’ perception of fairness are:
1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is one of the most talked about and studied
work-related behavior that is believed to be an outcome or a consequence of organizational
justice. OCB is defined as an informal work-related constructive and positive behavior that an
employee expresses at his own free will and without any type of formal commitment (Organ,
1990). OCB is composed of five main components which are volunteerism, boosterism,
sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and initiative. These components are believed to be predicted
by the perception of organizational justice and to be more specific, the perception of interactional
and procedural justice and not distributive justice (Moorman, 1991). Moreover, Moorman (1991)
also suggested that there is a very strong relationship between distributive justice and OCB. He
went further in saying that since OCB is an informal expression or behavior that an employee
can demonstrate, then it might as well be considered as an input that the employee can
manipulate to control his equity by reacting to perceived justice or injustice.
10
Moreover, in his work, Organ (1988b, 1990) came up with two possible reasons that
might explain why perceptions of organizational justice might have an effect on Organizational
Citizenship Behavior. The first reason was explained through Equity Theory (Adams, 1965)
which suggested the perceived injustice will buildup tension within the perceiver, which will
encourage him /her to eliminate it and maintain a kind of equilibrium between the inputs he/she
brings to the organization and the his/her peers (Adams,1965). As such, Organ (1988a) proposed
that a possible input to the equity ratio is OCB and that manipulating this input might be
considered an action by the employee to restore equity if injustice is perceived.
The second reason is that the relationship that exists between the employee and the
organization can be considered as one of social exchange. Therefore, if employees feel that their
relationship with their organization is one of social exchange, then the will most probably
demonstrate acts of citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988b).
To summarize things up, most of the studies done by researchers such as Konovsky and
Folger (1991), Farh, Podsakoff, and Organ (1988a, 1988b, 1990) conclude that there exists a
strong relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizational citizenship Behavior.
2. Work Performance
Most of the research done earlier in respect of Work Performance and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior highlighted the impact of one type of justice which is procedural justice on
the attitudes exhibited in the work place and the quality of the work performed (Lind & Tyler,
1988). More specifically, an assumption was made that procedural justice is more influential
when group harmony is required, whereas distributive justice is influential when productivity
11
and efficiency are required (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Consequently, by influencing employee
attitudes, procedural justice will eventually impact work performance. The opposite is also true,
which means perceptions of injustice will impact attitudes which in turn will negatively
influence work performance (Brockner &Wiesenfeld, 1996; Greenberg, 1987).
3. Counterproductive Work Behavior and Withdrawal Behavior
Greenberg & Scott (1996) expected that withdrawal behavior in addition to
counterproductive work behavior will both impact the three dimensions of organizational justice.
Counterproductive and withdrawal behaviors are assumed to be a response to perception of
distributive unfairness, where the perceiver manipulates contributions to restore his/ her equity.
They restore equity, by hurting the organization to decrease the level of their output compared to
the input they contribute. Similar finding were also predicted by Greenberg & Scott (1996)
regarding procedural injustice and counterproductive behaviors.
In view of the above, and since the relationship between the employee and the
organization can be considered as one of social exchange, it is safe to say that counterproductive
behaviors and withdrawal behaviors follow the same logic as the one behind Organizational
Citizenship Behavior (Organ & Moorman, 1993). In other words, if the perceivers believe that
the company is being unjust in the process of allocating resources, then they will exhibit harmful
approaches toward their own company. These harmful approached and feelings will most
probably de-motivate employees and push them to act against the company’s interest (Skarlicki
& Folger, 1997).
Alexander & Ruderman (1987) summarized the relation between perceived justice and
counterproductive behavior in their study, as a relationship between distributive justice and
12
certain behaviors that the perceiver does himself/herself; whereas the relationship with
procedural justice is concerned with behaviors that are socially oriented; and the relationship
with interactional injustice is one that creates negative behaviors directed towards the immediate
supervisor of the employee.
4. Attitudinal and Affective Reactions toward Specific Outcomes, the Organization, and the Supervisor
The above reactions that are usually made by the employees and directed to the company
were studied mostly in procedural justice models. Lind and Tyler (1988), for instance, assumed a
powerful affirmative effect of procedural justice on reducing organizational conflict. Moreover,
they discovered a powerful relationship between attitudes and procedural justice as opposed to
distributive justice (Alexander &Ruderman, 1987). The relationship between attitudes and
procedural justice was defined as one of cognitive nature while the relationship between attitudes
and distributive justice was defined as one of cognitive and affective in nature at the same time
(Austin & Walster, 1974).
Lastly, interactional justice was assumed to have an impact on the managers and their
decisions (Bies & Shapiro, 1987). Thus, a trust issue that might arise between an employee and
his/her supervisor is probably due to perceptions of interactional injustice and not distributive or
procedural injustice. Conversely, trust issues between the employee and the management is
probably due to perception of procedural injustice perceptions (Cropanzano & Prehar, 1999).
5. Organizational Commitment
Emotional attachment or affective commitment to the company is a companywide
product; accordingly it should be directly related to procedural justice and not interactional or
13
distributive justice that are related to the supervisor and the outcome itself respectively
(Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). In conformity with the above assumptions, Cohen-Charash &
Spector (2001) made similar predictions in that affective commitment is very much connected to
procedural justice and not so much connected to interactional justice or to distributive justice.
Conversely, continuance commitment, which is another type of attachment to the organization,
in which employees are simply unable to leave their company, is predicted to have no relation to
the three dimensions of justice (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991).
6. Organizational Trust
Trust in the organization is predicted to be related to perceptions of organizational
procedural justice and not organizational distributive justice, (Folger & Konovsky, 1989;
Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991), the reason behind this relationship is that trust usually depends
on actions and if the company acts in a fair and just manner then it is considered to be reliable
and trustworthy. This prediction, however, is not supported by Cohen-Charash & Spector (2001),
who found that organizational trust can be equally expected by all three dimensions of
organizational justice. They went further in predicting that the trust in one’s immediate superior
is better predicted by organizational procedural justice and not organizational distributive justice.
Nevertheless, no relationship was found regarding interactional justice and trust in one’s
immediate superior.
7. Turnover Intentions
This outcome perceived justice is expected to be connected to two types of organizational
justice, distributive and procedural justice. That is if the organization’s distributions and
14
procedures are perceived as just, incentive to leave the company diminishes drastically
(Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). Equally, others argue that turnover will be only predicted by
procedural justice, because procedural justice is the only dimension of organizational justice that
is directly connected to decision making and not connected to the outcome itself (Dailey & Kirk,
1992). Thus, if the organizational procedures are just, particular negative outcomes would not
push employees to quit their job. In addition to that all, procedural justice is predicted to be a
good predictor of turnover where the same cannot be said regarding interactional justice
(Masterson, 2000).
D. Distributive and Procedural Justice as predictors of Job Satisfaction
In their study, McFarlin & Sweeney (1992) found out that an important predictor of
personal outcomes including job and pay satisfaction would be distributive justice. Whereas, a
better predictor of organizational outcomes including organizational commitment would be
procedural justice. Nevertheless, an interaction between the two justices will also predict
organizational outcomes.
In fact, studies done earlier suggested that the nature of the outcome itself is crucial in
determining the predictive roles of procedural and distributive justice (Konovsky, 1987).
Alexander and Ruderman (1987), for instance, discovered that procedural justice is a significant
predictor of job satisfaction and perceived conflict. Same is not true in respect of distributive
justice as a predictor of job satisfaction and perceived conflict. Konovsky and colleagues (1987)
on the contrary discovered that procedural justice predicted organizational commitment and did
not predict pay satisfaction.
15
In a nutshell, the above findings propose that procedural justice is a significant predictor
of organizational outcomes like organizational commitment. Whereas, distributive justice is a
significant predictor of personal outcomes like pay satisfaction.
E. The Influence of Cognitive and Affective Based Job Satisfaction Measures on the Relationship Between Satisfaction and OCB
Organ's outlook that justice perceptions are connected to Organizational Citizenship
Behavior stemmed from the empirically supported relationship between OCB and job
satisfaction (Organ, 1988a, 1988b, 1990) . Organ (1988b) went further in proposing a
relationship between OCB and the cognitive constituent of job satisfaction which is previously
predicted to the influence perceptions of justice. In addition to that all, Organ (1988b) predicted
that if simultaneously measured, job satisfaction and perceptions of justice will together explain
the more variance in Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Accordingly, he deduced that if
organization justice and job satisfaction are measured simultaneously, then organizational justice
will be the one related to Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
F. Hypotheses
The aim of this paper was to test if a relation between perceptions of all three dimensions
of organizational justice (i.e. distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice) and
dimensions of OCB. In particular, relationships between dimensions of Organizational Justice
and Organizational Citizenship Behavior were examined. Moreover, since Organ (1988a)
suggested that there is a relation between job satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior, this might imply a relation between Organizational Justice and Organizational
16
Citizenship Behavior. Additionally, a relationship between job satisfaction and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior was also examined. The relative hypotheses were as follows:
H1: Job Satisfaction will positively influence dimensions of OCB.
H2: Perceptions of organizational justice will positively influence the dimensions of OCB.
H3: Perceptions of organizational justice will positively influence job satisfaction.
An additional interesting aspect that was tested in this study was the relationship between
two types of organizational justice that are distributive justice and procedural justice. Previous
relationship has been found by researchers such as Greenberg (1987), but the causal relationship
was not examined closely between the two.
Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was as follows:
H4: Perceptions of procedural justice will positively influence perceptions of distributive
justice.
17
CHAPTER III
METHODOLGY
A. Participants and Settings
The sample for this research was collected from the employees of four medium-sized
companies in Lebanon. Two of them were insurance companies, one shipping company & one
university. Data were collected in all companies by handing participants the surveys and
collecting them later at an agreed date.
The global employee response rate from the all companies was around 88%. In Total, 133
employees from all four companies completed the survey.
B. Measures
1. Organizational Justice
The scale used for Organizational Justice was founded on the basis of the scale used by
Moorman (1991) and which reported reliabilities of more than 0.90 on all three dimensions. The
dimensions were:
Distributive Justice, which was measured using five items assessing the fairness of
different work outcomes, including pay level, work schedule, work load and job responsibilities.
Procedural Justice, which was measured using six items assessing the degree to
18
which decisions made by management included procedures that guaranteed the collection
gathering of reliable data and information.
Interactional Justice, which was measured using five items assessing the degree to
which employees’ wants were taken into consideration the sufficient and satisfying explanations
were given to employees prior to decision taking.
2. Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction was evaluated with a six item scale that assessed the satisfaction of work
relations with others, with the level of pay, with promotion opportunities and with the current job
situation.
3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Since there was huge controversy in respect of behaviors that may be considered organizational
citizenship behaviors, a list of OCBs was generated by Kwantes, Karam, Kuo & Towson (2008) from
items found in past work by Moorman and Blakely (1995), Morrison (1994), and Podsakoff, Mackenzie,
Moorman, and Fetter (1990). The list was divided into five dimensions. The five dimensions were as
follows:
Volunteerism: which was measured using 11 items assessing the degree to which
employees are willing to volunteer to carry out task activities that are not formally part of one’s own
job
19
Boosterism: which was measured using 2 items assessing the degree to which employees
promote the organizational image to outsiders
Initiative: which was measured using 7 items assessing the degree to which employees
communicate to others on how to improve individual and group performance
Conscientiousness: which was measured using 6 items assessing the degree to which
employees will contribute in terms of attendance, punctuality, housekeeping, conserving resources, and
related matters of internal maintenance.
Sportsmanship: which was not included in the scale since it is believed that all employees
will answer positively on the subject
C. Data Analyses and Results
1. Frequencies
To better understand the profile of the sample understudy, frequency analysis was
performed for all the participants based on demographic variables such as, age, education,
gender, marital status, total work experience, tenure, sector, job status, lived abroad and
nationality. A depiction of the sample profile is illustrated in Table 1.
2. Factor Analysis
Factor analysis was conducted to determine the fit of the four factors of OCB, Job
Satisfaction and the three Organization Justice dimensions.
20
The four factors of OCB are: Volunteerism, Boosterism, Initiative & Conscientiousness
The three dimensions Organizational Justice are: Procedural, Distributive and
Interactional
Factor analysis was conducted on all items of OCB which led to the emergence of eight
factors that explained 66% of the variance. After a careful conceptual analysis, only three
relevant factors emerged, which were Volunteerism, Boosterism and Initiative. This suggests that
each of the emerged factors is unidimensional. Below you can find sample items of the scale
used for each factor:
Volunteerism: Do you arrive early to prepare for the day?
Boosterism: Do you defend the organization when outsiders criticize it?
Initiative: Do you encourage others to try new and more effective ways of doing their job?
Moreover, Factor analysis was conducted on all items of Organizational Justice which led to the
emergence of five factors that explained 65% of the variance. After a careful conceptual
analysis, three factors emerged. This also suggests that each of the emerged factors is
unidimensional. The factors that emerged were Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice and
Interactional Justice. Below you can find sample items of the scale used for each factor:
Procedural Justice: Do you think all job decisions are applied consistently across all affected
employees?
Distributive Justice: Do you think your level of pay is fair?
Interactional Justice: When decisions are made about your job, does management treat you with
respect and dignity?
21
Finally, factor analysis was also conducted on Job Satisfaction and after a careful conceptual
analysis; two factors emerged that explained 63% of the variance. The two factors can be
categorized as Relationship Satisfaction, and Pay & Promotion Satisfaction. Below you can find
sample items of the scale used for each factor:
Relationship Satisfaction: How satisfied are you with your relations with others in the
organization with whom you work [your co-workers or peers]?
Other Satisfaction: How satisfied are you with opportunities which exist in this
organization for advancement [promotion]?
3. Reliability
Reliability Tests were conducted on all items of Organizational Justice and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior to measure the internal consistency of these items and how closely related
were these items as a group. The Cronbach’s alpha for each item was calculated to investigate
whether the items measure an underlying construct. The Cronbach's alpha of the three organizational
justice scales were as follows:
Cronbach's alpha for Procedural Justice was 0.75
Cronbach's alpha for Distributive Justice was 0.70
Cronbach's alpha for Interactional Justice was 0.73
22
All three were equal or greater than the 0.70 minimum established by Nunnally (1978).
Hence the alpha coefficients for the three items suggest that the items have relatively acceptable
internal consistency.
On the other hand, The Cronbach's alpha of the three organizational citizenship behavior
scales were as follows:
Cronbach's alpha for Volunteerism was 0.70
Cronbach's alpha for Boosterism was 0.59
Cronbach's alpha for Initiative was 0.56
The Cronbach’s alpha of boosterism and initiative were both below 0.70 which are
unacceptable as per social science research standards. However, the Cronbach’s alpha for
volunteerism was 0.70 which is equal to the 0.70 minimum established by Nunnally (1978).
Hence the alpha coefficient of volunteerism is considered as having an acceptable internal
consistency and was therefore the only dimension of OCB to be used in the regression analysis
later to evaluate our proposed model (Figure 1).
4. T-Test
To uncover gender differences, an independent samples T-test was conducted to compare
the means of a normally distributed interval dependent variable for males and females. That is,
we tested whether the mean for perceptions of procedural justice, distributive justice and
interactional justice was the same for males and females. Similarly, we tested whether the mean
of volunteerism, boosterism and initiative and the mean of relationship satisfaction, pay&
promotion satisfaction and general satisfaction were the same for males and females.
23
The t test revealed no statistically reliable difference between females and males in respect of all
factors except for pay & promotion satisfaction, where results indicated that there is a statistically
significant difference between the mean of pay & promotion satisfaction for males and females ). In other
words, males have a statistically significantly higher mean of pay & promotion satisfaction than females,
which means that females are less satisfied than males regarding pay and promotion opportunities.
5. Regression Analysis
Regression analysis was performed to measure the effect of the three dimensions of
organizational justice on OCB dimensions. Moreover, regression analysis was performed to
measure the effect of the three dimensions of organizational justice on the three types of job
satisfaction. Finally, regression analysis was performed to measure the effect of the three types
of job satisfaction on all dimensions of OCB.
Individual relationships between the variables were tested to determine the significance
of the relationships labeled from 1 to 5 as shown in Figure 1 below.
Relationship 1 was evaluated to test Hypothesis 1: Job Satisfaction will positively
influence dimensions of OCB. The regression analysis revealed that the model for volunteerism
was significant with R-squared of 29.4% for relationship satisfaction only with a beta of 0.220
and significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Relationships 2 and 3 were evaluated to test Hypothesis 2: Perceptions of organizational
justice will positively influence OCB. The regression analysis revealed that the model for
volunteerism was significant with R-squared of 29.4% and a beta of 0.259 for procedural justice
and a beta of 0.283 for interactional justice. Both procedural justice and interactional justice were
24
significant at the p < 0.05 level. Whereas the beta for distributive justice was equal to -0.150;
which was insignificant with p > 0.1.
Relationship 4 was evaluated to test Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of organizational justice
will influence job satisfaction. Regression analysis revealed that the model for relationship
satisfaction was significant with R-squared of 37% and a beta of 0.451 for distributive justice;
which was significant at the level p<0.001 whereas the beta for procedural justice and
interactional justice were 0.115 and 0.146 respectively which were insignificant with p>0.1
Finally, Relationship 5 was evaluated to test Hypothesis 4: Perceptions of procedural
justice will influence perceptions of distributive justice. A correlation analysis revealed a
correlation of 0.459 between procedural and distributive justice which was significant at the p <
0.01 level.
25
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
As mentioned before, the aim of this research was to test the relation between perceptions
of Organization Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Through regression analysis,
support was found for the four hypotheses related to influence of perceptions of organizational
justice on OCB. Below is a discussion of the findings of this research.
Figure 1: Proposed Model
Job
Satisfaction
Distributive
Justice 4
1
5
2
OCB
Procedural
Justice
3
Interactional
Justice
26
A. Job Satisfaction & OCB
Hypothesis 1 was included in this study to examine if job satisfaction positively and
directly influences Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Most of the study done on OCB
included job satisfaction as a cause. In our study, we found a direct positive influence of
relationship satisfaction which is one dimension of job satisfaction and volunteerism which is
also one dimension of OCB. Hence we can say that Hypothesis 1 was supported but should more
clearly read as: Relationship Satisfaction will positively influence volunteerism.
B. Organizational Justice & OCB
Hypothesis 2 was included in this study to examine whether perceptions of fairness will
positively influence the dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.
The results of this study were consistent with Organ’s above viewpoint; however, a closer
look on the link between fairness perceptions and OCB revealed that the type of justice
perception is as significant in predicting the occurrence of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.
Analyses of the individual relations between the three dimensions of fairness and OCB resulted
in different effects of each dimension of justice. Our results, revealed a causal relationship
between perceptions of procedural and interactional justice and volunteerism (one dimension of
OCB). Thus, we can say that Hypothesis 2 was supported but should more clearly read as:
Perceptions of procedural and interactional justice will positively influence volunteerism.
27
C. Organizational Justice & Job Satisfaction
Hypothesis 3 was included in this study to examine whether perceptions of fairness will
positively influence job satisfaction. Previous research showed a relatively high relation between
all three justice types and general job satisfaction. Other predicted that general satisfaction a
more significantly connected to procedural justice more then to distributive justice. Our results
concerning job satisfaction showed that relationship satisfaction is influenced by distributive
justice alone. Thus, we can say that Hypothesis 3 was supported but should more clearly read as:
Perceptions of distributive justice will positively influence relationship satisfaction.
D. Procedural Justice & Distributive Justice
Hypothesis 4 was included in this study to examine whether perceptions of procedural
justice will positively influence perceptions of distributive justice.
The results of our study showed a strong correlation between procedural and distributive
justice. This can be explained by the fact that when employees perceive procedural fairness that
is fairness in the organizational system, institution, and authorities then the outcomes will also be
perceived as fair. Thus, we can say that Hypothesis 4 was also supported.
28
Figure 2: Supported Model
Distributive
Justice
Procedural
Justice
Interactional
Justice
OCB:
Volunteerism
Relationship
Satisfaction
1
2
3
4
5
29
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
A. Limitations
A basic limitation of this research is its exclusive dependence on cross-sectional and self-
report data. This dependency does not allow us to make strong causal statements about our
findings. The use of a longitudinal data is predicted to allow for better causal statements.
A second limitation would be the sample under study, though data was collected from
four different companies, it is still unique enough to raise concerns over generalizing its
outcome. Moreover, the companies under study did not seem to face lack of justice problems.
Maybe the results would be different if the organization faced such problems.
Finally, another limitation would be that employees were the ones responding to
questions regarding their citizenship behavior and a better and more accurate method would be
getting information on the citizenship behavior from the managers and not the employees.
B. Managerial Implications
The most important implication in this research is the fact that the direct superior of the
employee is able to directly affect employees' OCBs. The perception of justice that stemmed
30
from interactional justice depended on the ability of the direct superior of the employee to
properly use and implement procedures which were originally built to endorse justice. It also
depended on the manner in which the superior implemented the procedures. In view of the
above, if directors and supervisors wish to enhance the level of citizenship in their employees,
they must try and enhance the justice of their treatment and communication.
An end result of the above implication is that perceptions interactional justice is easier to
manage than the other forms of justice perceptions. For instance, perceptions of distributional
justice of outcomes are susceptible to forces beyond the supervisor’s power. Likewise, the
availability of procedures that are considered as fair by the employees depends highly on the
company’s policy and is not in the hands of the supervisor. By comparison, the interactional
justice depends largely on the supervisor’s sensitivity and kindness when treating and
communicating to their subordinates..
C. Future Research
A suggested direction for future research would be to figure out if personal and
organizational outcomes other than those examined here and in previous research will yield
similar predictive patterns for distributive and procedural justice. More research is also needed to
explain why is there a different effect of distributive and procedural justice on personal and
organizational outcomes. Dealing with the above matter may request a better understanding of
how personal and organizational outcomes differ.
31
APPENDIX
I. TABLE 1 – DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRIBUTES OF THE STUDY SAMPLE
Frequency Percent
Age
20-35 years 100 75.236-50 years 25 18.851-65 years 7 5.3More than 65 years 1 .8
Total 133 100.0
Education
Less than Bacc II 6 4.5Bacc II or HS 15 11.3BA 58 43.6Graduate 40 30.1Technical 10 7.5No Response 4 3.0
Total 133 100.0
Gender
Male 61 45.9Female 72 54.1
Total 133 100.0
Marital Status
Single 92 69.2Married 40 30.1Divorced 1 .8
Total 133 100.0
Total Work Experience
Less than 1 year 6 4.51-5 years 61 45.96-10 years 31 23.311-15 years 17 12.816 years or more 17 12.8No Response 1 .8
Total 133 100.0
32
Frequency Percent
Tenure
Less than 1 year 19 14.31-5 years 71 53.46-10 years 19 14.311-15 years 11 8.316 years or more 12 9.0No Reponse 1 .8
Total 133 100.0
Sector
General Services 114 85.7Trade 1 .8Non-Profit 2 1.5Public Sector 4 3.0Education 12 9.0
Total 133 100.0
Job Status
Top Management 2 1.5Middle Management 10 7.5Supervisory Management 27 20.3Non-Managerial 94 70.7
Total 133 100.0
Live Abroad
No 121 91.0Yes 12 9.0
Total 133 100.0
33
II. TABLE 2 – FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR OCB
Communalities
Initial Extraction Q11 1.000 .670
Q12 1.000 .685
Q13 1.000 .667
Q14 1.000 .601
Q15 1.000 .736
Q17 1.000 .507
Q20 1.000 .713
Q21 1.000 .552
Q22 1.000 .649
Q23 1.000 .806
Q25 1.000 .700
Q27 1.000 .721
Q30 1.000 .560
Q31 1.000 .743
Q32 1.000 .681
Q33 1.000 .686
Q36 1.000 .541
Q37 1.000 .629
Q38 1.000 .763
Q42 1.000 .623
Q43 1.000 .593
Q44 1.000 .669
Q46 1.000 .667
Q48 1.000 .735
Q51 1.000 .726
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
34
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance Cumulative % Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% 1 6.745 26.982 26.982 6.745 26.982 26.982 2.761 11.045 11.045
2 1.963 7.851 34.832 1.963 7.851 34.832 2.730 10.920 21.966
3 1.692 6.768 41.601 1.692 6.768 41.601 2.227 8.908 30.874
4 1.569 6.277 47.878 1.569 6.277 47.878 1.996 7.985 38.858
5 1.339 5.355 53.233 1.339 5.355 53.233 1.786 7.143 46.002
6 1.184 4.737 57.971 1.184 4.737 57.971 1.750 6.998 53.000
7 1.103 4.413 62.384 1.103 4.413 62.384 1.737 6.949 59.949
8 1.026 4.106 66.490 1.026 4.106 66.490 1.635 6.541 66.490
9 .997 3.989 70.479 10 .913 3.653 74.131 11 .802 3.207 77.338 12 .707 2.828 80.166 13 .628 2.511 82.677 14 .589 2.355 85.032 15 .549 2.195 87.227 16 .426 1.703 88.930 17 .399 1.598 90.528 18 .380 1.521 92.048 19 .350 1.401 93.449 20 .330 1.320 94.769 21 .312 1.246 96.015 22 .292 1.166 97.182 23 .283 1.134 98.315 24 .234 .936 99.251 25 .187 .749 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
35
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q13 .670
Q31 .666
Q12 .652
Q15 .623 .488
Q48 .621 .376
Q21 .621
Q43 .608
Q27 .598 -.399
Q51 .598 .497
Q37 .566 -.362
Q17 .550 -.371
Q44 .525 -.469
Q32 .502 -.411 .357
Q20 .485 -.460 .354
Q30 .480
Q36 .468 .370
Q38 .464 -.449 .399
Q25 .450 .420 .404
Q33 .449 .385 .360
Q22 .445
Q46 .702
Q11 .476 .549
Q23 .597 .403 -.384
Q42 .423 -.536
Q14 .533
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 8 components extracted.
36
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q42 .732
Q13 .666
Q17 .564
Q43 .695
Q44 .678
Q30 .656
Q21 .580
Q36 .539
Q27 .778
Q51 .669
Q31 .573
Q38 .831
Q48 .710
Q23 .870
Q15 .608
Q46 -.747
Q20 .639
Q11 -.458
Q33 .762
Q37 .485
Q32 .463
Q22 -.441
Q14 .692
Q12 .643
Q25 .595
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 15 iterations.
37
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 .496 .493 .439 .347 .218 .062 .262 .280
2 .117 -.245 .135 .339 .019 -.822 -.333 .072
3 .152 -.451 .066 -.423 .684 -.098 .297 .157
4 -.720 .403 .129 -.043 .382 -.103 -.195 .326
5 -.218 -.059 .326 -.279 -.542 -.283 .549 .299
6 .022 -.442 .329 .079 -.158 .436 -.421 .544
7 -.197 -.231 -.498 .606 .065 .068 .422 .326
8 .334 .282 -.553 -.365 -.124 -.155 -.192 .542
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
38
III. TABLE 3 – FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE
Communalities
Initial Extraction Q16 1.000 .741
Q26 1.000 .603
Q35 1.000 .671
Q40 1.000 .740
Q50 1.000 .626
Q18 1.000 .560
Q24 1.000 .625
Q28 1.000 .627
Q34 1.000 .561
Q41 1.000 .679
Q47 1.000 .708
Q19 1.000 .645
A29 1.000 .570
Q39 1.000 .674
Q45 1.000 .783
Q52 1.000 .641
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
39
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative
% Total% of
VarianceCumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% 1 5.537 34.608 34.608 5.537 34.608 34.608 3.402 21.264 21.264
2 1.435 8.968 43.575 1.435 8.968 43.575 2.261 14.131 35.395
3 1.248 7.800 51.375 1.248 7.800 51.375 2.069 12.934 48.329
4 1.131 7.069 58.445 1.131 7.069 58.445 1.545 9.657 57.986
5 1.103 6.891 65.336 1.103 6.891 65.336 1.176 7.350 65.336
6 .818 5.115 70.451 7 .789 4.933 75.384 8 .680 4.248 79.631 9 .574 3.587 83.218 10 .512 3.202 86.420 11 .475 2.968 89.388 12 .433 2.708 92.096 13 .381 2.379 94.474 14 .334 2.087 96.562 15 .297 1.858 98.420 16 .253 1.580 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
40
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 Q39 .742
Q19 .739
Q52 .718
Q45 .713
Q28 .705
Q34 .672
Q41 .650 -.373
Q50 .583 -.468
A29 .534 .503
Q16 .495 -.398 .391 .371
Q35 .497 -.523
Q26 .449 .528
Q18 .473 .566
Q24 .420 .405 .488
Q40 .504 -.649
Q47 .413 .648
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 5 components extracted.
41
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 Q28 .748
Q52 .691
Q39 .682
Q41 .676
Q34 .624
Q40 .600
Q35 .793
Q50 .711
Q16 .700
Q19 .497
Q26 .734
Q45 .710
A29 .660
Q18 .675
Q24 .665
Q47 .757
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.
42
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3 4 5 1 .711 .464 .418 .304 .111
2 -.005 -.720 .660 .145 .157
3 -.632 .467 .545 .113 -.271
4 -.137 -.108 -.303 .933 -.086
5 -.277 .191 -.031 .058 .939
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
43
IV. TABLE 4 – FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR JOB SATISFACTION
Communalities
Initial Extraction Q53 1.000 .680Q54 1.000 .651Q55 1.000 .584Q56 1.000 .527Q57 1.000 .712Q58 1.000 .635
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulat
ive % 1 2.644 44.074 44.074 2.644 44.074 44.074 2.191 36.509 36.5092 1.145 19.081 63.156 1.145 19.081 63.156 1.599 26.647 63.1563 .773 12.877 76.033 4 .529 8.816 84.849 5 .485 8.085 92.934 6 .424 7.066 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
44
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 Q58 .778 Q53 .769 Q54 .747 -.305 Q55 .638 -.421 Q56 .516 .511 Q57 .465 .704
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 2 components extracted.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 Q53 .806 Q54 .792 Q55 .764 Q57 .844 Q56 .711
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 1 .835 .550 2 -.550 .835
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
45
V. QUESTTIONAIRE
Confidential Work Questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to serve as a basis for gathering information about job attributes and work
attitudes. Your participation in this research project is entirely voluntary and your responses will be kept
completely confidential. Please do not write your name or the name of your organization. As soon as you
have completed the questionnaire, please return it in the enclosed self‐addressed envelope or give it to the
assigned person. Under no conditions will the identity of the respondent or the company involved be
disclosed. You responses will be aggregated and combined with hundreds of other responses from different
organizations and only reported in total.
SECTION 1: ABOUT YOURSELF
INSTRUCTIONS: For each question either fill in the blank or circle the number which represents your
answer. Please do not write your name or the name of your organization.
1. Age 1. Less than 20 years 2. 20‐35 years 3. 36‐50 years 4. 51‐65 years 5. More than 65 years
2. Education
1. Less than Baccalaureate or High School diploma
2. Baccalaureate or High School diploma
3. Bachelor’s degree 4. Graduate Studies 5. Technical Studies
3. Gender
1. Male 2. Female
4. Marital Status
1. Single 2. Married 3. Divorced 4. Other(Please specify)
_________________
5. Your work experience in total 1. Less than 1 year 2. 1‐5 years 3. 6‐10 years 4. 11‐15 years 5. 16 years or more
6. Your work experience in your current organization 1. Less than 1 year 2. 1‐5 years 3. 6‐10 years 4. 11‐15 years 5. 16 years or more
46
4. Marital Status
5. Single 6. Married 7. Divorced 8. Other(Please specify)
_________________
5. Your work experience in total 6. Less than 1 year 7. 1‐5 years 8. 6‐10 years 9. 11‐15 years 10. 16 years or more
6. Your work experience in your current organization 6. Less than 1 year 7. 1‐5 years 8. 6‐10 years 9. 11‐15 years 10. 16 years or more
7. Sector in which you work 1. General services 2. Manufacturing 3. Trade 4. Non‐Profit 5. Public sector 6. Education 7. Other (Please specify)
_________________
8. Job Status 1. Top Management 2. Middle Management 3. Supervisory Management 4. Non‐managerial Please specify
________________
9. Have you ever lived abroad for more than five years?
Yes No Please specify country
____________________
10. Nationality _______________________
SECTION 2: ABOUT WORK
Using the scale below please circle the best number (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that best describes to what extent you relate at work with each of the following statements:
1 = Small Extent 2 3 4 5 = Large Extent
11. Do you conscientiously follow regulations and procedures? 1 2 3 4 5
12. Do you help to make others more productive? 1 2 3 4 5
13. Do you help others who have been absent? 1 2 3 4 5
14. Do you arrive early to prepare for the day? 1 2 3 4 5
15. Do you defend the organization when outsiders criticize it? 1 2 3 4 5
16. Do you think your work schedule is fair? 1 2 3 4 5
17. Do you return phone calls and respond to other messages and requests for information promptly?
1 2 3 4 5
18. Do you think that the job decisions made by management are made in an unbiased manner?
1 2 3 4 5
19. When decisions are made about your job, does management treat you with kindness and consideration?
1 2 3 4 5
47
20. Do you often motivate others to express their ideas and opinions? 1 2 3 4 5
21. Do you volunteer for things that are not required at work? 1 2 3 4 5
22. Do you work late or through lunch? 1 2 3 4 5
23. Do you defend the organization when employees criticize it? 1 2 3 4 5
24. Do you think all job decisions are applied consistently across all affected employees?
1 2 3 4 5
25. Do you encourage others to try new and more effective ways of doing their job?
1 2 3 4 5
26. Do you think your level of pay is fair? 1 2 3 4 5
27. Do you assist your supervisor with his or her work? 1 2 3 4 5
28. Do you think management makes sure that all employee concerns are heard before job decisions are made?
1 2 3 4 5
29. When decisions are made about your job, does management treat you with respect and dignity?
1 2 3 4 5
30. Do you attend meetings that are not mandatory? 1 2 3 4 5
31. Do you come to work early if needed? 1 2 3 4 5
32. Do you encourage hesitant or quiet co-workers to voice their opinion when they might otherwise not speak up?
1 2 3 4 5
33. Do you help to organize departmental get-togethers? 1 2 3 4 5
34. Do you think management collects accurate and complete information before making job decisions?
1 2 3 4 5
35. Do you consider your work load is fair? 1 2 3 4 5
36. Do you make innovative suggestions to improve your company or department?
1 2 3 4 5
37. Do you always meet or beat deadlines for completing work? 1 2 3 4 5
38. Do you help others who have heavy workloads? 1 2 3 4 5
39. When decisions are made about your job, is management sensitive to your personal needs?
1 2 3 4 5
40. Do you think the rewards you receive are fair? 1 2 3 4 5
41. Do you think management clarifies decisions and provides additional information when requested by employees?
1 2 3 4 5
42. Do you inform others of job related problems they do not know? 1 2 3 4 5
43. Do you volunteer without being asked? 1 2 3 4 5
48
44. Do you attend training/information sessions that are not mandatory? 1 2 3 4 5
45. When decisions are made about your job, does management deal with you in a truthful manner?
1 2 3 4 5
46. Do you spend time in conversation unrelated to work? 1 2 3 4 5
47. Do you challenge or appeal job decisions made by the management?
1 2 3 4 5
48. Do you try to make the organization the best it can be? 1 2 3 4 5
49. Do you cover for late/absent people? 1 2 3 4 5
50. Do you think your job responsibilities are fair? 1 2 3 4 5
51. Do you perform duties with extra special care? 1 2 3 4 5
52. When decisions are made about your job, does management show concern for your rights as an employee?
1 2 3 4 5
SECTION 3: HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU? In the section below you will find questions relating to your job satisfaction. Please answer using the following scale:
1 = Strongly not Satisfied
2 = Not satisfied 3 = Neutral 4 = Satisfied 5 = Strongly Satisfied
53. How satisfied are you with the nature of the work you perform?
1 2 3
4 5
54. How satisfied are you with the person who supervises you [your organizational superior]?
1 2 3
4 5
55. How satisfied are you with your relations with others in the organization with whom you work [your co-workers or peers]?
1 2 3
4 5
56. How satisfied are you with the pay you receive for your job?
1 2 3
4 5
57. How satisfied are you with opportunities which exist in this organization for advancement [promotion]?
1 2 3
4 5
58. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your current job situation?
1 2 3
4 5
49
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 7,177-198. 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. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R.
J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cohen-Charash, Y. & Spector, P. E. (2001). The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-
Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. (1991). Procedural justice and worker motivation. In R. Steers &
L. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (pp. 131–143). New York: McGraw–Hill. Cropanzano, R., & Prehar, C. A. (1999, April). Using social exchange theory to distinguish
procedural from interactional justice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Dean B. McFarlin and Paul D Sweeney (1992). Distributive and Procedural Justice As Predictors
Of Job Satisfaction. Academy of Management. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice of reactions
to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130. 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. Gordon, M. E., & Fryxell, G. E. (1989). Voluntariness of association as a moderator of the
importance of procedural and distributive justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 993-1009.
Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means
justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61. 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.
50
Konovsky, M. A., & Freeman, A. B. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on
business organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 489–511. Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 656–669. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study
of fairness in social relationships. In K. S. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New \brk: Plenum Press.
Leventhal, G. S., & Lane, D. W. (1970). Sex, age, and equity behavior. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 15, 312–316. Levy, P.E.,&Williams, J. R. (1998). The role of perceived system knowledge in predicting
appraisal reactions, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 53–65.
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice:
Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 952–959.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York:
Plenum Press. Moorman, Robert H. J. (1993). The Influence Of Cognitive And Affective Based Job
Satisfaction Measures On The Relationship Between Satisfaction And Organizational Citizenship Behavior. New York: Human Relations.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. O'Reilly, C., &
Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.
Martin, C. L., & Bennett, N. (1996). The role of justice judgments in explaining the relationship
between job satisfaction and organization commitment. Group and Organization Management, 21, 84–104.
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, 738–748.
Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., Kemery, E. R., & Wesolowski, M. A. (1998a). Relationships
between bases of power and work reactions: The mediational role of procedural justice. Journal of Management, 24, 533–552.
51
Sweeney, P. D., McFarlin, D. B., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Locus of control as a moderator of the
relationship between perceived influence and procedural justice. Human Relations, 44, 333–342.
Organ, D. W (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43-72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum. Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of
procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology in business settings (pp. 77-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weiss, H. M., Suckow,K.,&Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete
emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 786–794.
top related