Fair Treatment, Job Involvement, and Turnover Intention of

Professional Employees in Government: The Importance of

Organizational Identification as a Mediator

Shahidul Hassan

John Glenn School of Public Affairs

The Ohio State University

Fair Treatment, Job Involvement, and Turnover Intention of

Professional Employees in Government: The Importance of

Organizational Identification as a Mediator

ABSTRACT

Although fairness is critical to effective human resource management, little effort has

been made to assess the role fairness plays in facilitating positive and preventing negative

employee outcomes in government agencies. Using data collected through a survey of 764

professional employees from a large state agency, this study examined the relationship between

perceived organizational justice and employees’ organizational identification, job involvement

and turnover intention. The findings indicated that perceptions of procedural and distributive

justice have positive effects on employees’ job involvement and negative effects on their

turnover intention, though these relationships are mediated by identification with the agency.

Implications of these findings for theory and practice are discussed.

1

INTRODUCTION

Justice--a term that often is interchangeably used with fairness by social scientists--is a

core principle upon which legal and political institutions are designed and operate in the United

States. Fairness also is fundamental to the administration of government agencies (Battaglio and

Condrey 2009). Existing civil service procedures concerning the selection, evaluation,

promotion, and termination of employees in government agencies largely are guided by

principles of fairness (Rubin 2009). Nevertheless, we know little about the role, if any, that

fairness plays in facilitating positive outcomes and preventing negative consequences in

government agencies.

The limited amount of research that has been completed in government work settings

suggests that fair treatment can improve employees’ trust in management, increase satisfaction

with their jobs, supervisors and organizations, strengthen their organizational commitment, and

reduce their intention to leave their agency (Alexander and Ruderman 1987; Choi forthcoming;

Hassan and Rohrbaugh forthcoming; Kurland and Egan 1999; Noblet and Rodwell 2009; Rubin

2009). Clearly, these findings highlight the importance of fairness in public administration, but

they do not elucidate the underlying psychological mechanism through which organizational

fairness perceptions may influence employee outcomes in public agencies.

The present study examined the role of procedural and distributive justice with respect to

two important outcomes--job involvement and turnover intention. This study focused on job

involvement because it is closely associated with employees’ work motivation and goal-directed

behaviors (Kanungo 1982; Lawler, 1992; Lodahl and Kejner 1965; Paullay et al. 1994).1 It is

well known that public sector employees are engaged by a concern for their community and

1 Job involvement refers to the degree to which individuals are cognitively preoccupied with, engaged in, and concerned with their present job (Paullay et al. 1994: 224). It is a cognitive state pertaining to an individual’s psychological connection to the current job (Lawler and Hall 1970).

2

desire to serve the public interest (Houston 2000; Perry and Wise 1990). A positive relation

between public service motivation and job involvement also has been shown (Moynihan and

Pandey 2007). Further, related research has indicated that a variety of organizational and job-

related factors can influence government employees’ motivation and involvement in their work

(see, for example, Pandey, Moynihan, and Wright 2008; Ward and Park, 2010; Wright 2004,

2007). While this research has provided valuable insight, little effort has been made to assess

whether fairness experiences may motivate employees in government agencies to become more

involved in their jobs.

Additionally, this study focused on professional employees’ turnover intention because of

the strategic value of their intellectual capital in government agencies, as well as the significant

direct and indirect costs involved in replacing skilled professional employees (Moynihan and

Pandey 2008). Previous research has shown that turnover of skilled employees can have serious

negative consequences, including a decline of organizational performance (Meier and Hicklin

2008). Further, when skilled employees leave, agencies lose the source of valuable institutional

knowledge, requiring resources to be spent on recruiting and training new employees rather than

invested in sustaining important public programs (Moynihan and Pandey 2008).

Fair treatment can be an effective mechanism for lowering professional employees’

intention to leave their current agency. Several previous studies have found a negative relation

between perceptions of procedural and distributive justice and federal employees’ turnover

intention (Choi forthcoming; Rubin 2009). The present study built upon this research by

clarifying the underlying process through which fairness perceptions may affect professional

employees’ turnover intention. This effort was guided by the social identity perspective (Tajfel

and Turner 1979, 1986; Turner 1985) and group-oriented organizational justice theories (Lind

and Tyler 1988;Tyler and Lind 1992; Tyler and Blader 2000, 2003). According to these theories,

3

fair treatment provides employees with important feedback about their social status and standing

in their organization. Further, this positive feedback increases their organizational identification

(Ashforth and Mael 1989; Ashforth, Harrison, and Corley 2008), which, in turn, motivates them

to become more involved in their jobs and influences their continuing work in their present

organization. Using data collected through a survey of 764 professional employees from a state

agency, this study relied on structural equation modeling to assess the role organizational

identification as a mediator in the relation between procedural and distributive justice

perceptions and professional employees’ job involvement and turnover intention.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

The specific pattern of relationships among the five variables examined in this study is

shown in Figure 1, and the theories on which they are based are reviewed below. First, an

overview of organizational justice and its importance in managing employees in government

agencies is provided. Second, the social identity perspective (Tajfel and Turner 1979, 1986;

Turner 1985) and the concept of organizational identification (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Ashforth

et al. 2008) are reviewed. Third, based on the group-oriented organizational justice theories

(Lind and Tyler 1988;Tyler and Lind 1992; Tyler and Blader 2000, 2003), seven research

hypotheses that were empirically tested in this study are presented.

---------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 1

----------------------------------

Organizational Justice

Organizational justice generally is conceptualized in terms of employees’ perceptions of

fairness in their workplaces (Colquitt, Greenberg, and Zapata-Phelan 2005). Organizational

justice is a multidimensional construct that consists primarily of two components—distributive

and procedural justice. While distributive justice refers to fairness in the allocation of

4

organizational rewards and resources among employees (Adams 1965; Homans 1961),

procedural justice concerns the fairness of formal policies and procedures used in making those

allocation decisions (Leventhal, 1980; Lind and Tyler, 1988). Moreover, an additional

component of organizational justice known as interactional justice has been proposed recently,

that is, the quality of interpersonal treatment employees receive from authorities during the

implementation of formal procedures (Bies 2000). 2

The present study focused on distributive and procedural justice due to their close

association with a variety of beneficial employee outcomes (Colquitt et al. 2001; Cohen-Charash

and Spector 2001). Procedural and distributive justice are related but different concepts. It has

been shown in previous research that employees develop perceptions about distributive and

procedural fairness in different ways (Colquitt 2001). Employees consider the allocation of work

rewards to be fair when it is consistent with expected norms such as equity, equality, and need

(Colquitt et al 2005). Further, decision-making processes are perceived to be fair when they are

accurate, consistent, unbiased, correctable, representative, and ethical (Leventhal 1980;

Leventhal, Karuza, and Fry 1980; Thibaut and Walker 1975).

Importance of Justice in Government Agencies

Justice serves a normative function in government agencies by providing legitimacy to

decisions made by government authorities (Rubin 2009). Legitimacy of government actions is

an important issue in both classical and contemporary public administration scholarship (Mosher

1968; Waldo 1948). Citizens’ perception of legitimacy of government actions partly depends on

their personal experiences with street-level bureaucrats as they seek various public services.

Fairness during those interactions can inform citizens about the appropriateness of government

2 Although recent research has shown international justice can be empirically distinguishable from procedural justice (Colquitt 2001), there still remains disagreement whether interactional justice is conceptually distinct from procedural justice.

5

decisions and can influence them to accept and comply with those decisions (Tyler and Degoey

1995). Moreover, fair treatment by government authorities sends important signals about

positions and social worth of underprivileged groups in a society (Lens 2009).

Justice also is critical for effectively managing employees in government agencies. It is a

guiding principle for cooperative social actions in the workplace (Barnard 1938). Individuals

care deeply about how they are treated in their workplaces, and their perceptions of

organizational justice may largely influence the nature of their relationship with and feelings

about their organizations (Folger and Cropanzano 1998). Previous research has shown that

perceptions of organizational justice are important predictors of job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, turnover intention, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors

(Colquitt et al. 2001; Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001).

Despite its relevance, organizational justice has not received substantial attention in

public administration scholarship. Further, although the larger community of organizational

researchers already have engaged in considerable study of organizational justice, only a small

amount of that work has been completed in government agencies (Alexander and Ruderman

1987). The limited amount of research that has been completed in public sector settings has

provided some evidence about the importance of fairness in managing employees in government

agencies. For instance, Choi (forthcoming) and Rubin (2009) have found that federal

employees’ perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness are closely related to their job

satisfaction, trust in management, and turnover intention. In another recent study, Hassan and

Rohrbaugh (forthcoming) have shown that the perception of organizational justice is an

important predictor of organizational commitment of employees in state agencies. Further,

Kurland and Egan (1999) have found that procedural and distributive justice perceptions are

positively linked with local government employees’ satisfaction with their supervisors. These

6

findings indicate that employees in all levels of government value fair treatment, but they do not

explain how fairness perceptions lead to such outcomes.

The group value model (Lind and Tyler 1988), relational model of authority (Tyler and

Lind 1992) and group engagement model (Tyler and Blader 2000, 2003) provide important

insight about why employees value fair treatment in the workplace. These group-oriented

organizational justice theories are based on the social identity perspective (Tajfel and Turner

1979, 1986; Turner 1985) and suggest that employees value fairness because it provides them

with important information about their social status and standing in their organization. According

to these perspectives, the positive feedback employees receive from their experiences with

procedural and distributive justice enhances their collective self-esteem and helps them to

develop a positive social identity (Tyler and Blader 2000). Identification with the organization,

from this perspective, plays a mediating role in the relation between fair treatment and

employees’ cooperative attitudes and behaviors towards their organization.

Organizational Identification

Organizational identification refers to perception of oneness with or belongingness to the

organization, where individuals define themselves in terms of the organization of which they are

a member (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Ashforth et al. 2008). This definition has roots in the social

identity perspective, which comprises theories of social identity (Tajfel 1978; Tajfel and Turner

1979, 1986) and self-categorization (Turner 1985). Social identity from this perspective is

defined as ―the individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with

some emotional and value significance to him of the group membership‖ (Tajfel, 1972: 292).

Additionally, identification is a socio-cognitive process through which individuals categorize

themselves and others as members of particular groups because they need to simplify and make

7

sense of the complex social world (Hogg and Terry 2001). Social categorization provides

individuals with a means to clarify who they are (Turner 1985) and, subsequently, guide their

interactions with members of their own and other groups (Hogg and Terry 2001).

An organization can be a primary source of an individual’s social identity (Hogg and

Terry 2001). Further, organizational identification has important implications for both

employees and the organizations in which they work. Identification with an organization helps

individuals to enhance collective self-esteem (Ashforth et al. 2008). Additionally, when

employees identify strongly with their organization, the differences between their personal and

their organizational identities become blurred (Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail 1994).

Consequently, employees assimilate into their self-concepts the distinctive, central, and enduring

attributes that define their organization (Dutton et al. 1994). Employees feel the successes and

failures of their organization as their own, and they engage in behaviors that help the

organization to achieve its goals.

Organizational identification is a multidimensional construct that consists of a cognitive

and an evaluative component. The cognitive component captures the extent to which

individuals’ organizational membership is self-defining and how they see themselves in relation

to their organization (Ashforth et al. 2008). The evaluative component encompasses the value

that individuals attach to their organizational membership (Ashforth et al. 2008). Specifically, it

indicates what individuals think and feel about their organizational membership (e.g., pride

versus shame). It is closely associated with individuals’ emotional reactions to their organization

that can be both positive and negative (Dutton et al. 1994).

Much of past research on organizational identification focused on the effects of its

cognitive component on employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. The evaluative component of

organizational identification has received only limited attention in previous research (Blader and

8

Tyler 2009). This is quite surprising, given that the impact of individuals’ social identity on their

attitudes and behavior is determined largely by the extent to which their identity fosters personal

and collective self-esteem and contributes positively to their self-image (Haslam, Powell, and

Turner 2000). Focusing on the evaluative component, therefore, appears to be critical for a

better understanding of the impact of organizational identification on work attitudes and

behaviors (Ashmore, Deaux, and McLaughlin-Volpe 2004; Blader and Tyler 2009).

This study focused on the role of the evaluative component of organizational

identification—pride in organizational membership—as a mediator of the relationship between

public sector employees’ perceptions of procedural and distributive justice and their job

involvement and turnover intention. Pride in organizational membership refers to employees’

evaluation of the general worth and status of their employing organization (Blader and Tyler

2009). It is an intergroup evaluative judgment that directly captures the evaluative aspect of

group identification (Blader and Tyler 2009). While making such judgments, employees pay

close attention to the values, beliefs, and goals that they perceive as commonly held by

themselves and their organization (Blader and Tyler 2009; Tyler 2001).

Hypothesis for Procedural Justice and Organizational Identification

This study expected that perceptions of procedural fairness would have a positive effect

on professional employees’ organizational identification. According to the group-oriented

organizational justice theories (Lind and Tyler 1988; Tyler and Lind 1992; Tyler and Blader

2000), an important basis of employees’ evaluation of the status of their organizational

membership is likely to be their perceptions of fairness in the formal policies and procedures

used in the decision-making processes of their organizations. Procedural justice provides

feedback on which employees rely to determine the nature of their relationship with their

9

organization (Lind and Tyler 1988; Tyler and Blader 2000; Tyler and Lind 1992). This feedback

specifically indicates employees’ social status and standing in an organization, whether they can

develop and maintain satisfying social identity based on their organizational membership (Tyler

and Blader 2000, 2003). From this perspective, professional employees’ pride in their

organizational membership is expected to flow directly from their perception of procedural

justice. Past research also has provided support for this argument (Blader and Tyler 2009; Tyler

and Blader 2000; Tyler and Degoey 1995). These studies, however, did not focus on employees

in a public sector setting.

H1 Procedural justice will have a positive influence on organizational identification.

Hypothesis for Distributive Justice and Organizational Identification

Another important basis of employees’ evaluation of the status of their organizational

membership is their perception of the extent to which work-related rewards are allocated fairly in

their organization (Blader and Tyler 2009). Employees generally expect that the distribution of

organizational rewards will be proportional to their work efforts (Adams 1965; Homans 1961).

Further, it is widely acknowledged that equity in the allocation of rewards is an important source

of employees’ work motivation (Greenberg 1982; Latham and Pinder 2005). There also is a

growing body of work that indicates that rewards and resources have symbolic value beyond

their instrumental effects (Jenkins, Mitra, Gupta, and Shaw 1998; Porter, Bigley, and Steers

1996). The group engagement model suggests that distributive justice provides information

similar to that conveyed through procedural justice (Tyler and Blader 2000, 2003). It also

indicates to employees whether they can safely make identity-related investments in their

organization (Blader and Tyler 2009). Hence, distributive justice is likely to have a positive

effect on professional employees’ organizational identification. Two recent field studies have

10

found a positive relation between distributive justice and organizational identification (Blader

and Tyler 2009; Olkkonen and Lipponen 2006), but this linkage has not been tested in a

government work setting. Thus, the present study examined the following hypothesis:

H2 Distributive justice will have a positive influence on organizational identification.

Hypothesis for Organizational Identification and Job Involvement

The present study anticipated that organizational identification will have a positive

influence on professional employees’ job involvement. The social identity perspective suggests

that, when individuals’ make status judgments about their group membership, they focus on their

feelings about the prototypical characteristics that define the group (Tajfel 1978). Positive

evaluation of group membership increases individuals’ collective self-esteem and contributes

positively to their self-concept (Ellemers, Kortekaas, and Ouwerkerk 1999; Smith and Tyler

1997). Positive assessment of group membership, therefore, is likely to result in the blurring of

differences between individuals’ personal and group identities (Hogg and Terry 2001). Hence,

pride in organizational membership may lead employees to act in accordance with their

organization’s values, beliefs, norms, and goals (Hogg and Terry 2001). Following this

perspective, one might argue that, when professional employees take pride in their organizational

membership, they are likely to internalize the goals and values of their organization as their own

which, in turn, may motivate them to become more involved in their jobs (Van Knippenberg

2000). Hence, the following hypothesis was tested in the present study:

H3 Organization identification will have a positive influence on job involvement.

Hypothesis for Organizational Identification and Turnover Intention

The present study anticipated that, when professional employees take pride in their

organizational membership, they are more likely to remain with their organization. The social

11

identity perspective suggests that identification is a socio-cognitive process in which individuals

evaluate the status of their own group by comparing it with other groups on several value

dimensions (Tajfel and Tuner 1979, 1986). Favorable comparisons between the in-group and

out-groups provide in-group members with a sense of prestige and positive social identity. In

contrast, unfavorable comparisons between the in-group and out-groups provide in-group

members with a sense of low prestige and negative social identity. Additionally, the social

identity perspective suggests that enhancing self-esteem is a fundamental human motivation

(Tajfel and Turner 1979, 1986). The need for positive self-esteem motivates individuals to

enhance the image of their own group in comparison with other groups. Further, when a group

lacks a positive image, its members may attempt to disassociate themselves cognitively from that

group and seek membership in a higher status group (Tajfel and Tuner 1979, 1986). From this

perspective, when membership with a public agency helps employees to maintain a positive

social identity, they are less likely to disassociate themselves from that agency. Several previous

studies have found a negative relation between organizational identification and turnover

intention (Abrams, Ando, and Hinkle 1998; Moura, Abrams, Retter, Gunnersdottir, and Ando

2009; Olkkonen and Lipponen 2006). However, this research focused on the cognitive rather

than the evaluative aspect of organizational identification.

H4 Organizational identification will have a negative influence on turnover intention.

Hypothesis for the Mediating Role of Organizational Identification

When professional employees in a government agency perceive that their work outcomes,

as well as the administrative procedures leading to the decisions about those outcomes, are fair,

they are likely to become more involved in their jobs and continue working in that agency. This

study anticipated that these positive influences would be mediated by their organizational

12

identification. The group engagement model (Tyler and Blader 2000, 2003) suggests that

employees’ cooperative attitudes and behaviors in the workplace largely are determined by their

social identification with their organization. Further, individuals develop such identification

through feedback about whether their work efforts are valued by their organization and whether

they have high social status and standing in their organization (Tyler and Blader 2000, 2003).

Additionally, this identity-relevant feedback originates from employees’ procedural and

distributive justice experiences in their organization (Tyler and Blader 2000, 2003). Following

these assertions, this study anticipated that perceptions of procedural and distributive justice

would indirectly affect employees’ job involvement and turnover intention through their

organizational identification. These indirect relationships have not been thoroughly examined in

previous research. In a recent study, Olkonnen and Lipponen (2006) surveyed 270 professional

employees in a Finish research institute and found the only existing support for the mediating

role of organizational identification in the relation between justice perceptions and turnover

intention. Also, the relations between job involvement and both procedural justice and

distributive justice have not been thoroughly examined. Neither has the role of organizational

identification as a mediator in the relationship between perceptions of organizational justice and

job involvement been investigated in previous research.

H5 The effects of procedural justice on job involvement and turnover intention will be

mediated by organizational identification.

H6 The effects of distributive justice on job involvement and turnover intention will

be mediated by organizational identification.

13

Hypothesis for Job Involvement and Turnover Intention

The final hypothesis that this study examined concerns the effect of job involvement on

professional employees’ intention to leave their agency. When employees in an organization

find their work important, meaningful, and intrinsically rewarding, they generally become highly

engaged in their work. Additionally, when employees are highly engaged in their job, they are

more likely to stay in that job and in that organization. Past research also consistently found a

moderate relationship between job involvement and turnover intention. A meta-analysis of job

involvement by Brown (1996) reported a significant negative correlation between job

involvement and actual turnover, as well as between job involvement and turnover intention.

Given these results, a similar pattern of connection was expected in the present study:

H7 Job involvement will have a negative influence on turnover intention.

METHOD OF THE STUDY

The present study was conducted with an organizational survey of all employees in

geographically dispersed offices of a New York State agency with twelve distinct divisions of

operation. Before initiating the study, the state agency was experiencing a high level of turnover

of professional and technical employees.3 This survey was conducted as part of a long-term

research project undertaken by the state agency with a goal of assessing and improving its work

climate and increasing employees’ organizational identification and reducing turnover. Data

were gathered through the design and use of a unique, eight-page survey of 2614 employees in

2008. Responsibility for internal distribution and collection of surveys was assigned to division

managers of the state agency. Prior to distributing surveys, the division managers clearly

communicated to all participants about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of their

3 The annual rate of employee turnover in the state agency was estimated to be close to ten percent, a large portion of which included skilled professional and technical employees (e.g., auditors, accountants, lawyers, and information technology professionals).

14

participation, and the complete anonymity of their responses. Altogether, 2136 usable surveys

were returned for an overall response rate of 82 percent; response rates by division ranged from a

low of 70 percent to a high of 100 percent.

Because this study focused on the effects of professional employees’ perceptions of

distributive and procedural justice on their organizational identification, job involvement, and

turnover intention, only employees belonging to occupational groups classified as professional

were included in the analysis. This included respondents who identified themselves as technical

and managerial employees and were at and above the salary grade 18 and below salary grade

27.4 Using these criteria, data from 764 professional employees were included in the analysis.

The professional employees in this agency primarily were auditors, lawyers, and information

technology specialists. Demographic data for the sample are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

-------------------------------------

INSERT TABLES 1 & 2

-------------------------------------

Respondents completed a 130-item survey designed in large part to examine employees’

perceptions of their work climate, job characteristics, and work attitudes. The survey included

items to assess employees’ perceptions of distributive and procedural justice, as well as their

organizational identification, job involvement, and turnover intention. In addition to the

variables that were relevant for the present study, data were collected for other agency, office

and individual-level variables, the analysis of which is beyond the scope of this study. Most of

the survey items were measured on a six-point (coded 1-6) strength of agreement (strongly

disagree to strongly agree) or a five-point (coded 0–4) frequency of occurrence (never to almost

always) scale except for the items for distributive justice, which are discussed below.5

4 Employees at the salary grade level 27 and above in New York State agencies are considered to be senior managers/executives and were not

included in the data analysis. 5 A complete list of study items is provided in Table 4.

15

In organizational research, measures of distributive justice typically focus on employees’

perceptions of equity in the allocation of work-related rewards (Colquitt 2001). Distributive

justice in this study was measured with three items that specifically focused on perceptions of

equity in the allocation of work-related rewards among employees. These three items were

measured on a six-point (coded 0-5) level of fairness scale (not fair at all to very fair). The

reliability coefficient (i.e., Cronbach’s α) for these three items was 0.74.

Procedural justice in organizational research generally is assessed with either a direct or

an indirect measurement approach (Colquitt and Shaw 2005). Direct measures of procedural

justice explicitly ask participants about fairness of a particular decision-making process, and they

are predominantly used in experimental design (Colquitt and Shaw 2005). Indirect measures of

procedural justice are used more frequently in field studies. Further, items of an indirect

measure do not explicitly focus on the fairness of a particular procedure; instead, such items

focus on one or more determinants of procedural justice, such as the Leventhal’s (1980)

procedural justice rules (Colquitt and Shaw 2005). This study relied on an indirect measurement

approach. Six items were used to assess employees’ perceptions of procedural fairness that

correspond with three of Leventhal’s (1980) six procedural justice rules: representation (i.e.,

voice opportunity), bias suppression, and ethicality. Cronbach’s α for these six items was 0.83.

Multiple items also were used to assess the three outcome measures. Organizational

identification was measured with three items that focused on the evaluative aspect of

organizational identification. These items were very similar to items previously used by Tyler

and Blader (2000) to measure pride in group membership. The reliability coefficient for these

three items was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.84). Further, job involvement was measured with three

items that focused on the degree to which employees’ are engaged in their jobs or find carrying

out their jobs in the present work environment as engaging (Paullay et al. 1994). Several recent

16

studies also have used similar items to measure employees’ job involvement in a public sector

setting (Hassan and Rohrbaugh forthcoming; Ward and Park 2009). Cronbach’s α for these three

items was 0.71. Further, turnover intention was measured with three items based on a measure

developed by Sager, Griffeth, and Hom (1998). Cronbach’s α for these three items was 0.75

RESULTS

Univariate and Bivariate Analyses Results

Table 3 reports the univariate and bivariate statistics for the five measures used in the

present study. The potential range of values for each scale varied depending on the number of

items or questions used to create each measure. Distributions for four of the five measures were

somewhat negatively skewed, with a greater number of respondents reporting a relatively high

degree of procedural and distributive justice, organizational identification, and job involvement.

Further, the distribution of the measurements of turnover intention was positively skewed with a

greater number of professional employees reporting a relatively low level intention to leave their

current organization. Although composite scores for all five measures were either positively or

negatively skewed, the differences between the average scores and the scale midpoints were not

very large. Further, the standard deviations for all of the measures were relatively high,

indicating adequate variability in the data sufficient for further analysis.

---------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 3

----------------------------------

All ten correlations among the five measures were moderate and statistically significant

(p<0.05). The highest observed correlation was between job involvement and turnover intention

(r = -0.60) and the lowest was between distributive justice and job involvement (r = 0.37). The

median correlation between study measures was .50. This indicates that, on average, the

variance typically shared between two measures was limited to one-quarter of the total variance,

17

and no measure shared more than 36 percent of the variance with any other measure.

Nevertheless, a considerable degree of interrelatedness between the study measures was expected

with four hypothesized direct relationships, as well as the corresponding indirect relationships.

Structural Equation Modeling Results

Following the two-step process recommended by Kline (1998), the research hypotheses

were tested with structural equation modeling. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were

conducted in the first step to assess the fit of the measurement model. The second step assessed

fit of structural model with hypothesized relationships among the latent constructs. This study

relied on one measure of absolute fit (i.e., the chi-square test), one measure of parsimony fit (i.e.,

RMSEA—the root mean square error of approximation), and two measures of relative fit (i.e.,

CFI—the comparative fit index—and NNFI/TLI—the non-normed fit index) to assess the fit of

the measurement and structural models. A reasonably fit is indicated by CFI and NNFI values of

.90 or above and RMSEA value of .08 or less (Hu and Bentler 1995; Schumacker and Lomax

2004).

The Measurement Model

Construct validities of the five measures were assessed with CFA. Table 4 summarizes

CFA results for the full measurement model. As shown in Table 4, all of the scale items were

found to have statistically significant factor loadings (p<0.05) for their respective latent

constructs (λs = 0.54 to 0.93 for distributive justice, λs = 0.54 to 0.78 for procedural justice, λs =

0.70 to 0.89 for organizational identification, λs = 0.59 to 0.81 for job involvement, and λs =

0.56 to 0.79 for turnover intention). Additionally, the composite reliabilities for all five factors

were above the minimum threshold value of 0.70 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black 1998).

18

Further, the variance extracted estimates for all five constructs were very close to or higher than

the recommended 50 percent value (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

--------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 4

---------------------------------

The fit indices obtained from SEM results indicated the measurement model provided

good fit to the data. Three of the four fit indices indicated that the proposed measurement model

provided a good fit to the data. The CFI for the full measurement model was 0.97, and the

NNFI/TLI was 0.96. Both of these values were well above the minimum threshold that generally

is necessary for a good fit. In addition, the RMSEA was 0.04, well below the maximum

threshold value necessary for a satisfactory fit (i.e., 0.08). Only the maximum likelihood chi-

square was inconsistent with a good model fit (χ2

= 287.26, df = 125, p<0.05). However, the

lack of fit found by the chi-square test was not of particular concern because this index is

sensitive to sample size, with larger samples inflating the chi-square and decreasing the

likelihood of achieving a good model fit (Kline 1998). Overall, these results provided empirical

support for the validities of the five latent constructs.6

The Structural Model

Similar to the measurement model, the overall fit of the proposed structural model was

assessed using the four fit indices discussed earlier. Three of the four fit indices indicated that

the proposed structural model provided good fit to the data (CFI = 0.97, NNFI/TLI = 0.96, and

RMSEA = 0.05).7 Only the maximum likelihood chi-square (χ

2 = 320.68, df = 129, p<0.05) was

6 To assess discriminant validity of the procedural and distributive justice measures, an additional CFA was conducted in which distributive and

procedural justice items loaded on two separate factors. The chi-square statistic of this two-factor solution then was compared with that of a solution in which distributive and procedural justice items loaded on a single factor. The difference between the chi-square statistics of these

alternative models was found to be statistically significant (Δχ2 = 189.76, df = 1, p<0.05). A comparison of other fit indices indicated that the two-

factor organizational justice solution (CFI = 0.97, NNFI/TLI = 0.95 and RMSEA = 0.06) provided a better fit to the data than the one-factor solution (CFI = 0.89, NNFI/TLI = 0.85 and RMSEA = 0.12).

7 Additional tests of the structural model were conducted by including a number of demographic variables. No significant differences in the results were found for participants’ age, gender, race, job and organizational tenures.

19

inconsistent with a good model fit. However, the lack of fit found by the chi-square test was not

of particular concern because this index is sensitive to sample size (Kline 1998). Figure 2

presents summary results of the structural model as standardized regression coefficients.

As shown in Figure 2, the t statistics for path coefficients for all of the direct relationships

were statistically significant (p<0.05) and in the predicted direction. As anticipated, perception

of procedural fairness were found to have a strong effect on professional employees’

organizational identification (β = 0.60). Similarly, professional employees who reported that

organizational rewards were fairly distributed showed a greater sense of identification with their

agency (β = 0.16). When taken together, procedural and distributive perceptions explained half

of the variance in organizational identification. In addition, the results indicated that

professional employees who strongly identified with their agency also felt highly involved in

their jobs (β = 0.56). They also were more inclined in continuing their work (β = -0.33) than

those who weakly identified with their agency. Additionally, professional employees who felt

highly involved in their work were less likely to leave their agency (β = -0.42). These findings

provided strong empirical support for hypotheses one through four and hypothesis seven.

------------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 2

------------------------------------

Mediation Analysis

To assess whether organizational identification mediated the effects of procedural and

distributive justice on professional employees’ job involvement and turnover intention, an

additional structural model was run.8 This structural model incorporated both the direct and

indirect paths to test the mediation effects specified in hypotheses five and six. Specifically, four

8 Figure 2 summarizes the results of the final structural model (partial mediation model). Two different structural models were run and tested in

this study. The first was a full mediation model in which organizational identification was hypothesized to fully mediate the effects of procedural and distributive justice on job involvement and turnover intention. The data provided a good fit to this full mediation model (CFI=0.97,

NNFI/TLI=0.96, RMSEA=0.05, χ2 = 320.68, df = 129, p<0.05). An alternative, partial mediation, model also was run, and the results indicated

that the partial mediation model provided a better fit to the data than the full mediation model (CFI=0.97, NNFI/TLI=0.96, RMSEA=0.05, χ2 = 287.27, df = 125, p<0.05).

20

additional direct paths (procedural justice job involvement, distributive justice job

involvement, procedural justice turnover intention, and distributive justice turnover

intention) were added to the full mediation model (shown as dotted arrows in Figure 2). To draw

a conclusion about mediation effects, this study relied on effect decomposition breakdowns for

each independent measure, a process in which the total effect of an independent measure on a

dependent measure is divided into its indirect and direct effects (Brown 1997). A significant

indirect effect in the structural model indicates that a significant amount of the independent

measure’s total effect on the dependent measure occurred through the mediating measure.

Sobel’s Z statistic (1982) for each indirect path coefficient was calculated to determine whether

the indirect effects were statistically significant. The significance (or non-significance) of the

direct paths in the additional structural model was used as a basis to determine whether there was

full versus partial mediation. Table 5 summarizes the results of these mediation analyses.

------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 5

------------------------------------

The results indicated that organizational identification fully mediated the effect of

procedural justice on professional employees’ job involvement. As shown in Table 5, the

coefficient for the indirect path connecting procedural justice with job involvement through

organizational identification was significant (Sobel’s Z = 6.58, p<0.05), whereas the coefficient

for the direct path was not significant (see Figure 2). In addition, the effect of procedural justice

on professional employees’ turnover intention was partially mediated by their organizational

identification. The coefficient for the indirect path connecting procedural justice with turnover

intention through organizational identification was statistically significant (Sobel’s Z = 4.65,

p<0.05). Procedural justice also was found to have a direct influence on professional employees’

turnover intention (β = -0.16, p<0.05). These results provided support for hypothesis five.

21

Empirical support also was found for hypothesis six. The coefficient for the indirect path

from distributive justice to job involvement through organizational identification was statistically

significant (Sobel’s Z = 2.80, p<0.05), as was the coefficient for the direct path from distributive

justice to job involvement (β = 0.14, p<0.05). Hence organizational identification partially

mediated the effect of distributive justice on professional employees’ job involvement.

Organizational identification also was found to partially mediate the effect of distributive justice

on professional employees’ turnover intention. As indicated in Table 5, the coefficient for the

indirect path from distributive justice to turnover intention through organizational identification

was statistically significant (Sobel’s Z = 2.57, p<0.05). Distributive justice also was found to

have a direct influence on employees’ turnover intention (β = -0.10, p<0.05).

DISCUSSION

Implications for Research and Practice

The results of this study indicated that fairness perceptions play an important role in

government agencies in terms of increasing employees’ organizational identification and job

involvement and lowering their intention to leave their agency. This study also indicated that the

effects of justice perceptions on professional employees’ job involvement and turnover intention

were mediated by their identification with their agency. These findings are important because

they provide a better understanding of how fairness perceptions may facilitate positive and

prevent negative employee outcomes in government agencies. These findings also have

extended previous research on organizational justice in government agencies (Choi forthcoming;

Hassan and Rohrbaugh forthcoming; Kurland and Egan 1999; Rubin 2009). Specifically, no

public management research to date has examined indirect effects of procedural and distributive

justice on government employees’ job involvement and turnover intention. Additionally, this is

22

the first public sector study to examine how employees in government agencies think and feel

about their organizational membership from the social identification perspective.

The results of this study also have implications for research and theory concerning

organizational fairness. This study primarily relied on the group engagement model (Tyler and

Blader 2000, 2003) to examine how fairness perceptions influence employee outcomes in a

government agency. The group engagement model is a relatively new theory, and its arguments

have not been thoroughly examined in different organizational contexts, especially in

government agencies. This study provides further empirical evidence about this emerging

domain of research. As indicated by the results, fair treatment may provide a symbolic message

to employees about the extent to which their work efforts are valued by their organization, and

this, in turn, may increase their organizational identification, job involvement, and intention to

continue to work for their organization.

Procedural justice in this study was found to have greater impact than distributive justice

on professional employees’ identification with their agency. This finding corroborates the

assertion of the group engagement model (Tyler and Bladder 2000, 2003) that fairness of

decision-making procedures is the key source of employees’ organizational identification.

Nevertheless, as indicated by this study, distributive justice also plays a significant role in the

development of employees’ identification with their organization, although procedural justice

has the stronger influence in increasing professional employees’ job involvement and reducing

their turnover intention. These findings are consistent with previous research that has indicated

that procedural justice is more strongly related to employees’ affective reactions toward their job

and organization, whereas distributive justice has a stronger effect on employees’ satisfaction

with outcomes such as pay and promotion (see, for example, Sweeney and McFarlin 1993;

Masterson et al. 2000).

23

The present study also offers practical insight about how to increase professional

employees’ job involvement and lessen their turnover intentions in government agencies. As

indicated by the results, fostering organizational identification would be an effective strategy to

increase professional employees’ job involvement and lower their intention to leave their agency.

This study also indicated ways to enhance public sector employees’ organizational identification.

Specifically, to foster employees’ organizational identification, public agencies should place a

considerable effort in institutionalizing fair decision-making processes. Managers in public

agencies can play an active role in establishing a fair work climate by making reward and

resource allocations decisions in a visibly impartial manner. Further, managers can increase

their subordinates’ perception of procedural fairness by providing them with opportunities to

voice their concerns in decisions that affect their work, ensuring consistency in decision-making

procedures, and making decisions based on accurate and timely information. Further, managers

also can increase their subordinates’ perception of fairness by treating them with dignity and

respect while implementing formal policies and procedures.

This study also found that distributive justice plays an important role in enhancing

organizational identification and job involvement and reducing turnover intention. Government

agencies, therefore, should pay greater attention to developing specific human resource policies

that ensure equitable distribution of rewards and resources among employees (e.g., a

performance-based reward scheme). However, any such initiative would need to be

implemented with great care and guidance. Distributing rewards and resources among

employees based on their efforts is likely to have a positive impact on their work motivation,

involvement and performance (Greenberg 1982; Latham and Pinder 2005). However, relying on

the equity principle alone may not be adequate for increasing an agency’s performance, because

24

it requires one to differentiate between organizational members, thereby undermining harmony

and interpersonal cooperation in work groups (Leventhal 1976).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The contribution of this research should be acknowledged in light of its limitation. The

study relied on a cross-sectional design and, thus, conclusions regarding causality should be

made with great caution. Further, data for this study were collected from employees in one large

state agency in New York. Although this organization was charged with diverse public

responsibilities and was widely dispersed geographically, the results reported in this study may

have somewhat limited generalizability. Hence, additional empirical tests of the findings with

samples taken from a broader range of public organizations and geographic areas would provide

more validity for the hypothesized research model.

This study shares the potential problem of common method bias (Campbell and Fiske

1959) with all prior studies that have focused on organizational justice using self-report data

from a single source such as an interview protocol or a questionnaire. In brief, the measurement

of multiple variables through a common method may overestimate the actual magnitude of their

interrelations due to the contribution of a pattern of response covariance evoked solely by use of

one assessment form. Self-reports in organizational research, for example, may induce patterns

of response set such as social desirability, acquiescence, or deviation that can increase observed

correlations between measures.

Statistical remedies for common method bias remain problematic (Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff 2003). A variety of non-statistical procedures were introduced

in the design of the present study to reduce potential common method bias. Anonymity of

response was assured repeatedly in all correspondence and evidenced in every aspect of data

25

collection. Questionnaires were completed at different times and in multiple office locations.

Further, the particular items used in the present study were interspersed widely over seven pages

and nine distinct sections within the larger 130-item questionnaire. These items also were almost

evenly split in the directionality of their wording (i.e., both positive and negative statements).

Varied response formats were presented. Although no items for ―marker‖ variables were

inserted strategically in the questionnaire to allow for the statistical control of common method

bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003), the results of the present study produced some evidence that the

design procedures (discussed above) may have been at least somewhat effective. For example,

bivariate analysis indicated that variance shared on average between two measures was limited to

one-quarter of the total variance, despite an expectation in research design of a high degree of

relatedness between the measures. Further, findings of this study were strengthened somewhat

by the use of structural equation modeling, as it allows testing of the hypothesized model in the

absence of measurement errors and other extraneous influences through simultaneous estimation

of both the measurement and theoretical models (Hoyle 1995). These steps successfully

attenuated, if not eliminated, common method bias in the results. Nevertheless, future research

should rely on longitudinal designs and multiple sources of data to test the hypothesized

relationships

This study primarily examined the evaluative aspect of organizational identification as a

mediator of the relationship between justice perceptions and government employees’ work

attitudes. However, the cognitive aspect of organizational identification also plays an important

role in shaping employees’ cooperative work attitudes and behaviors (Riketta 2005; Ashforth et

al. 2008). Hence, a logical extension of this study would be to focus on both the cognitive and

evaluative components of organizational identification while assessing the effects of justice

perceptions on government employees’ job involvement and turnover intention. Additionally, to

26

fully assess the theoretical impact of this research, future studies should consider examining

alternative variables as mediators in the relation between fairness perceptions and government

employees’ cooperative attitudes and behaviors. Recently, Choi (forthcoming) and Rubin (2009)

have found that trust in management is an important outcome of federal employees’ perceptions

of organizational justice. Emerging research also indicates that trust in management plays an

important role in government employees’ satisfaction with their job and organization and their

perception of work unit performance (Cho and Ringquist 2011). It will be worthwhile to

examine whether organizational identification and trust in management differentially mediate the

effects of justice perceptions on government employees’ in-role (e.g., job performance) and

extra-role behaviors (e.g., voluntary learning behavior and interpersonal helping behavior).

27

Figure 1

Research Framework

Distributive

Justice

Organizational

Identification

Job

Involvement

H4

H3

H2

H7

H1

Turnover

Intention

Procedural

Justice

H5-H6

28

Figure 2

Results of the Final Structural Model

Model Fit Statistics: CFI = .97, NNFI/TLI = .96, RMSEA = .04, χ2(df = 125) = 287.26, p<.05

*Standardized path coefficients significant at p<.05

Distributive

Justice

Organizational

Identification

Job

Involvement

-.33*

0.56*

0.16*

-0.42*

0.60*

Turnover

Intention

Procedural

Justice

R2 = 0.51

R2 = 0.74

R2 = 0.43

-0.10*

0.14*

-0.16*

0.02

29

Table 1

Sample Demographics and Organizational Characteristics

Characteristics Percent

Ethnicity

Asian 4.7%

African American 6.5%

Hispanic 1.6%

Native American 0.5%

Caucasian/White 86.5%

Other

0.2%

Gender

Female 45.4%

Male

54.6%

Nature of Position

Technical 85.1%

Managerial 14.9%

30

Table 2

Age and Tenure of the Sample

Measures Minimum Maximum Mean Standard

Deviation

Age 23 70 44.2 10.0

Years in Current Position 1 34 4.8 9.7

Years in Agency 1 37 10.7 8.6

Years in State Government 1 41 9.3 5.1

31

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients9

Measures Means Standard

Deviations 1 2 3 4 5

1. Procedural Justice 24.68 5.89 (0.83)

2. Distributive Justice 11.77 3.17 0.59* (0.74)

3. Organizational Identification 15.28 2.82 0.59* 0.47

* (0.84)

4. Job Involvement 13.76 2.93 0.39* 0.37

* 0.47

* (0.71)

5. Turnover Intention 7.37 3.90 -0.53* -0.47

* -0.60

* -0.57

* (0.75)

9 Cronbach’s α for the five measures are shown in parentheses

32

Table 4

Properties of the Full Measurement Model

Constructs and Indicators Standardized

Factor Loadings

Indicator

Reliability

Composite

Reliability

Variance

Extracted

Estimates

Procedural Justice 0.83 0.45

Upper level managers are courteous to employees 0.70* 0.49

Employees are treated fairly 0.78* 0.61

Employees are encouraged to raise issues and concerns at work 0.65* 0.42

Important decisions are made top down without any consultation (R) 0.60* 0.36

Personnel decisions are influenced by factors like ethnicity, age, or gender of employees (R) 0.54* 0.30

Assignments are given on the basis of favoritism without regard to merit (R) 0.74* 0.55

Distributive Fairness 0.77 0.55

How fair and equitable do you consider promotion examinations to be? 0.67* 0.45

How fair and equitable do you consider career opportunities to be? 0.93* 0.86

How fair and equitable do you consider training opportunities to be? 0.54* 0.30

Organizational Identification 0.84 0.64

I speak positively about this organization to outsiders 0.79* 0.63

I am embarrassed to say that I work in this organization (R) 0.70* 0.79

I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization 0.89* 0.78

Job Involvement 0.71 0.46

It is hard for me to get very involved in my current job (R) 0.61* 0.37

At the end of the day, I feel good about the work I do in this organization 0.59* 0.35

Time seems to drag while I am on the job (R) 0.81* 0.65

Turnover Intention 0.76 0.52

I plan to be working here three years from now (R) 0.56* 0.31

I would quit this organization tomorrow if it were possible 0.79* 0.62

I think about getting a different job outside this organization 0.79* 0.62

Model Fit Statistics: χ2 (125) = 287.26, p<.05, CFI= 0.97, NNFI/TLI = 0.96 and RMSEA = 0.04

* p<0.05

33

Table 5

Coefficients for the Standardized Direct, Indirect and Total Effects

Paths Direct

Effects

Indirect

Effects

Total

Effects

Procedural Justice Organizational Identification 0.60* 0.60

Distributive Justice Organizational Identification 0.16* 0.16

Procedural Justice Job Involvement 0.02 0.34

Procedural Justice Turnover Intention -0.16* -0.50

Distributive Justice Job Involvement 0.14* 0.22

Distributive Justice Turnover Intention -0.10* -0.24

Organizational Identification Turnover Intention -0.33* -0.57

Procedural Justice organizational identification Job Involvement 0.34* (6.58)

Procedural Justice organizational identification Turnover Intention -0.20* (4.65)

Distributive Justice organizational identification Job Involvement 0.09* (2.80)

Distributive Justice organizational identification Turnover Intention -0.05* (2.57)

Distributive Justice Job Involvement Turnover Intention -0.06* (2.74)

Organizational Identification Job Involvement Turnover Intention -0.24* (5.90)

Sobel’s Z statistics are shown in parenthesis next to the indirect effects

*p<0.05

34

REFERENCES

Abrams, D., K. Ando, and S. W. Hinkle .1998. Psychological attachment to the group: Cross-

cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of

workers’ turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24: 1027-1039.

Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed.,

L. Berkowitz, 267-299. New York: Academic Press.

Alexander, S., and M. Ruderman. 1987. The role of procedural and distributive justice in

organizational behavior. Social Justice Research 1: 117-198.

Ashforth, B. E., S. H. Harrison, and K. G. Corley. 2008. Identification in organizations: An

examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management 34: 325-374.

Ashforth, B. E., and F. A. Mael. 1989. Social identity theory and organizations. Academy of

Management Review 14: 20-39.

Ashmore, R. D., K. Deaux, and T. McLaughlin-Volpe. 2004. An organizing framework for collective

identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin 130: 80–

114.

Barnard, C. 1938. The Function of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Battaglio, P.D. and S.E. Condrey. 2009. Reforming public management: Analyzing the impact of

public Service reform on organizational and managerial trust. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory 19: 689-707.

Bies, R. J. 2000. Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In Advances in Organizational

Justice, eds., J. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano, 85-108. Stanford, CA: Stanford University

Press.

Blader, S. L., and T. R. Tyler. 2009. Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages

between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra-role behaviors.

Journal of Applied Psychology 94: 445-464.

Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Brown, R. L. 1997. Assessing specific mediational effects in complex theoretical models. Structural

Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journa, 4: 142-156.

Brown, S. 1996. A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement.

Psychological Bulletin 120: 235-255.

Campbell, D. T., and D. W. Fiske. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-

multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56:81-105.

Cho, Y. J., and E. J. Ringquist. 2010. Managerial trustworthiness and organizational outcomes.‖

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21: 87-115.

Choi, S. forthcoming. Organizational justice and employee work attitudes: The federal case. American

Review of Public Administration

Cohen-Charash, Y., and P. Spector. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.

Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82: 278-321.

Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a

measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 386-400.

Colquitt, J. A., D. E. Conlon, M. J. Wesson, C. O. L. H. Porter, and K.Y. Ng. 2001. Justice at the

millennium: A meta analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of

Applied Psychology 86: 425-445.

Colquitt, J. A., J. Greenberg, J., and C. P. Zapata-Phelan. 2005. What is organizational justice? A

historical overview. In Handbook of Organizational Justice, eds., J. Greenberg and J. A.

Colquitt, 3-58. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

35

Colquitt, J. A., and J. C. Shaw. 2005. How should organizational justice be measured? In Handbook of

Organizational Justice, eds. J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt, 113-155. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Dutton, J. E., J. M. Dukerich, and C. V. Harquail. 1994. Organizational image and member

identification. Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 239-263.

Ellemers, N., P. Kortekaas, and J. W. Ouwerkerk. 1999. Self-categorization, commitment to the group

and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of

Social Psychology 29: 371-389.

Folger, R., and R. Cropanzano. 1998. Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management:

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18:39-50.

Greenberg, J. 1982. Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations. In Equity

and Justice in Social Behavior, eds., J. Greenberg and L. Cohen, 389-435. New York:

Academic Press.

Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Haslam, S. A., C. Powell, and J. C. Turner. 2000. Social identity, self-categorization, and work

motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organizational

outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review 49: 319–339.

Hassan, S., and J. Rohrbaugh. forthcoming. The role of psychological climate on public sector

employees' affective commitment: An empirical assessment for three occupational groups.

International Public Management Journal

Hassan, S. and J. Rohrbaugh. 2009. Incongruity in 360-degree feedback ratings and competing

managerial values: Evidence from a public agency setting. International Public Management

Journal 12: 421 - 449

Hogg, M. A., and D. J. Terry. 2001. Social Identity Theory and Organizational Processes.

Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Homans, G. C. 1961. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Hoyle, R. H. 1995. The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental

issues. In Structural Equation Modeling, ed., R. H. Hoyle, 1-15. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jenkins, G. D., A. Mitra, N. Gupta, and J. D. Shaw. 1998. Are financial incentives related to

performance? Journal of Applied Psychology 83: 777-787.

Houston, D. J. 1997. Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory 10: 713-728.

Kanungo, R. N. 1982. Work Alienation: An Integrative Approach. New York: Praeger.

Kline, R. B. 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford

Press.

Kurland, N. B., and T. D. Egan. 1999. Public v. private perceptions of formalization, outcome and

justice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9: 437-458.

Latham, G. P., and C. G. Pinder. 2005. Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the

twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology 56: 485–516

Lawler, E. E. 1992. The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High Involvement Organization. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lens, V. 2009. Seeking justice: Citizen's use of fair hearings to correct errors in public welfare

bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19: 817-837.

Leventhal, G. S. 1976. Fairness in social relationships. In Contemporary Topics in Social Psychology,

eds., J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence and R. C. Carson, 211-239. Morristown, NJ: General

Learning Press.

36

Leventhal, G. S. 1980. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of

fairness in social relationships. In Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, eds. K.

Gergen, M. Greenbers and R. Willis, 27-55. New York: Plenum.

Leventhal, G. S., J. Karuza, and W. R. Fry. 1980. Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences.

In Justice and Social Interaction, ed., G. Mikula, 167-218. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lind, E. A., and T. R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum

Press.

Lodahl, T. M., and M. Kejner. 1965. The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of

Applied Psychology 49: 24-33.

Masterson, S. S. and K. Lewis, B.M. Goldman and M. S. Taylor. 2000. Integrating justice and social

exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships.

Academy of Management Journal 4: 738-748.

Meier, K. J., and A. Hicklin. 2008. Employee turnover and organizational performance: Testing a

hypothesis from classical public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory 18: 573–590.

Mosher, F. 1969. Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press

Moura, G. R., D. Abrams, C. Retter, S. Gunnersdottir, and K. Ando. 2009. Identification as an

organizational anchor: How identification and job satisfaction combine to predict turnover

intention. European Journal of Social Psychology 39: 540-557.

Moynihan, D. P., and S. K. Pandey. 2007. Finding workable levers over work motivation: comparing

job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Administration and Society

39:803 - 832.

Moynihan, D. P., and S. K. Pandey. 2008. The ties that bind: Social networks, person-organization

value fit, and turnover intention. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18:

205–227.

Olkkonen, M. E., and J. Lipponen. 2006. Relationships between organizational justice, identification

with organization and work unit, and group related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes 100: 202–215.

Pandey, S. K., D. P. Moynihan, B. E. Wright. 2008. Public service motivation and interpersonal

citizenship behaviors: Testing a preliminary model. International Public Management Journa,

11: 89-108.

Perry, J., and L. Wise. 1990. The motivational base for public service. Public Administration Review

50: 367-373.

Paullay, I. M., G. M. Alliger, and E. F. Stone-Romero. 1994. Construct validation of two instruments

designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology 79:

224-228.

Podsakoff, P.M., S. M. MacKenzie, J. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method variance in

behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of

Applied Psychology 88: 879-903.

Porter, L. W., G. Bigley, and R. M. Steers. 1996. Motivation and Work Behavior. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Riketta, M. 2005. Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior 66:

358-384.

Rubin, E. V. 2009. The role of procedural justice in public personnel management: Empirical results

from the Department of Defense. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19:

125-143.

Rupp, D. E. and R. Cropanzano. 2002. The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in

predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes 89: 925-946.

37

Sager, J. K., R. W. Griffeth, and P. W. Hom. 1998. A comparison of structural models representing

turnover cognitions. Journal of Vocational Behavior 53: 254-273.

Sweeney, P. D., and D. B. McFarlin.1993. Workers evaluations of the ends and the means: An

examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes 55: 23-40.

Smith, H., and T. R. Tyler. 1997. Choosing the right pond: The impact of group membership on self-

esteem and group-oriented behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 33: 146-170.

Tajfel, H. 1972. Social categorization (English translation of "La cat6gorisation sociale"). In

Introduction a la Psychologie Sociale, ed., S. Moscovici, 272-302. Paris: Larousse.

Tajfel, H. 1978. The achievement of group identification. In Differentiation between Social Groups:

Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed., H. Tajfel, 77-98. London:

Academic Press.

Tajfel, H. 1982. Social psychology and intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology,33:1-39.

Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. 1979. An integrative theory of social conflict. In The Social Psychology of

Intergroup Relations, eds., W. Austein and S. Worchel, 33-48. Chicago: Nelson Hall.

Tajfel, H., and J. C. Turner. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Psychology of

Intergroup Relations, ed., S. Worchel and W. G. Austin, 7-24. Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.

Thibaut, J. W., and L. Walker. 1975. Procedural Justice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Turner, J. C. 1985. Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group

behavior. In Advances in Group Processes, ed., E. J. Lawler, 77-121, Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Tyler, T. R., and S. L. Blader. 2000. Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and

Behavioral Engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Tyler, T. R., and S. L. Blader. 2003. The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity,

and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review 7: 349-361.

Tyler, T. R., and P. Degoey. 1995. Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and

social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 69: 482–497.

Tyler, T. R., and E. A. Lind. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology 25: 115-191.

Van Knippenberg, D. 2000. Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied

Psychology: An International Review 49: 357-371.

Waldo, D. 1948. The Administrative State: A Study of Political Theory of Public Administration.

New York: Ronald Press.

Ward, J., and S. M. Park. 2009. Working across the divide: Job involvement in the public and

non-profit sectors. Review of Public Personnel Administration 29: 103-133.

Wright, B. E. 2004. The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal

and social cognitive theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14:59-78.

Wright, B. E. 2007. Public service motivation: Does mission matter? Public Administration Review 67:

54-64