Organizational Justice: Identical Treatment for All Employees

Introduction

Organizational Justice is defined as “a personal evaluation about the ethical and moral standards of managerial conduct” (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 35). It consists of three main distinctive components. These are: “Distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice” (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 36). As shown in previous studies, each component has its own effects and relation to job satisfaction, task performance, and the employees’ trust in their management and organization, and commitment to the management and organization.

Organizational justice actually refers to identical treatment for all employees, irrespective of their origin, relation, age, gender, etc. The main criterion for promotions and incentives should be performance. If this policy is adopted by organizations, justice would prevail and employees would be content and satisfied. As a result, a work environment conducive of progress would be created and performance of organizations would improve.

Organizational justice has great benefits when it comes to the functioning of a business. Employees strive hard to stick to such theories in order to perform better and become successful in achieving their goals – ironically, this might require the employees to compromise with their own principles. There might be certain managers who would want to make certain changes in the policies that might have a long-term effect (like financial managers), while some managers would like to change the policies on a daily basis (like human resources managers).

The problem is that while following the set principles and policies, employees get so involved that they might (unwillingly though) ignore other areas of business. Also, there might be instances where employees don’t feel comfortable with the policies (due to their difference of opinion) but since they have to work according to the organizational culture, they have to let go their own feelings. Sometimes it becomes difficult to execute the organizational theory because there is no consideration of the employees’ psychology while making the policies.

A number of studies have been conducted in the past, in an attempt to define organizational justice, using different theories. To be specific, these studies have lent more credence to procedural justice in the organization. Each of these theories proposes a unique strategy of describing organizational justice. A number of researchers have attempted to establish a connection between perception of organizational justice and a number of organizational results such as behaviors of organizational citizenship, withdrawal, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 35).

This paper will study the concept of organizational justice in Saudi Arabian Oil and Gas Company. The research project is valuable as it may help to understand the concept of organizational justice and its components. In terms of academic interest, the study has the potential to help understand how organizational justice affects and relates to perceived support, trust, commitment, satisfaction, and turnover intentions. The paper will cover the effect of the components of the organizational justice and its relationship to variable constructs.

Problem Statement

While following organizational justice requirements can be beneficial for the success of a business, incidents of injustice can result in employees’ dissatisfaction and hamper growth prospects.

Research Objective

The objective of this research is to investigate the effect of organizational justice on organizations and to understand the correlation between various constructs of organizational behavior.

Research Questions

This research would answer the following questions:

What are the benefits of organizational justice?
How are different constructs of organizational justice interlinked?
What is the significance of employees’ trust and perceived support to an organization’s performance?
What are the effects of injustice in organizations?

Organization of the research

After a short introduction, the research delves into literature review and hypothesis. Conceptual background and research model are also discussed. The paper further describes the methodology adopted, the procedure and approach. The results of the survey have been included in the study with an appropriate discussion of the results. The paper concludes with a conclusion. All the scholars referred for the sake of this study have been included at the reference page.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

The concept of organizational justice comes to the forefront when any injustice occurs (Baldwin 2006). Some examples of injustice in organizations are: Difference in pay scales of male and female employees, performance evaluation done by a person who is not acquainted to the employees being evaluated, appointments on the basis of acquaintance, and removal from job without any prior notice, etc. Such incidents might have a negative impact on the employees that can be detrimental for the organization. Effects of such injustice might prompt employees to leave the job, reduce work efforts, and report to higher authorities; there may be other effects as well. One of the worst things that can happen as a result of injustice is employees’ resorting to theft of organization’s property in order to compensate their losses. This particular act can be very dangerous for the organization because it is quite possible that the affected employees might take away such information that might be useful for competitors; such as trade secrets. Such information might not be of any use for the employees but they can at least destroy the organization’s growth prospects. Other reactions of such employees might be to waste company property, utilize office hours in unproductive work, and refuse to comply with instructions.

In organizations (especially large ones), the employees contribute immensely towards the performance and reputation. It is the employees who deal with the vendors, buyers, and other stakeholders of the organization. So their behavior has a great impact on the organization’s performance and image. Hence it becomes imperative to keep the employees happy and content. The leaders should evolve new methods and strategies to infuse enthusiasm in the employees. Individual contact with all employees is a must in order to make them feel wanted. The salary structure and the leave sanctions also have a great emotional and psychological effect on the employees. The organization’s success is directly proportional to the satisfaction of its employees. If the employees are satisfied, they will send positive messages to the outside world and hence improve the organization’s image.

It is a general misconception that employees think organizational justice is merely a way to attain better outcomes. Such misconceptions are a result of confusion between ‘favorability’ and ‘justice’. While favorability is an opinion about individual capacities, justice relates to ‘moral propriety’. It has been proved that favorability and justice are two different features (Stitka, Winquist & Hutchinson 2003).

Usually, employees are worried about their future prospects. It is possible that presently, employees are being treated nicely but they want to know the manner in which they will probably be treated in future. Just organizations clear such apprehensions by making policies for the future. It is understood that all decisions of an organizations cannot be in favor of the employees. There are certain decisions that are taken in the interests of the organization as well. But employees should be concerned with the monetary benefits that they are proposed to avail (Tyler & Smith 1998). Employees prefer fairness from their organizations because if the dealings are fair/just, it means that they would not be cheated. Also, employees like to express their happiness on being given incentives for their performance (Weiss, Suckow & Cropanzano 1999).

We, as human beings have certain obligations towards the society. We want to be treated as humans. We do not want to be exploited or debilitated by people who hold power and/or position. If organizations follow a policy of being just, employees will be satisfied and relieved that they will never be ill-treated and their organization will never take undue advantage. Such a mindset of employees is more important than the monetary benefits that they get (Tyler & Blader 2000).

Justice is also considered to be apt because people feel that others should be treated in a similar manner as they would want to be treated (Folger 2001). Most of us, on witnessing any atrocity, would like to go to any extent to ensure that the culprit is punished (Bies & Tripp 2001). But if such a reaction happens in an organization, it would prove to be very harmful (Ellard & Skarlicki 2002).

Conceptual Background

Organizational Justice (OJ)

According to Cropanzano, Bowen and Gilliland (2007), organizational justice is defined as “members’ sense of the moral propriety of how they are treated” (p. 34). Organizational justice has unique characteristics. For example, it focuses on what employees believe to be fair in an organizational setting. In other words, organizational justice strives to understand why employees perceive some occurrences as fair as well as their effects (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 36). Bearing this in mind, organizational justice is perceived as a subjective idea because it lends credence to what employees consider to be right as opposed to the prescriptive moral convention. This means that the management must incorporate employees’ perceptions in order to dispense justice. The management must also identify those incidents that produce this subjective feeling of organizational justice (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 36).

There are three types of components of organizational justice that matter to employees. These are: “Interactional justice, procedural justice, and distributive justice” (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 36); these three are interrelated. Nonetheless, it is important to study them independently if the aim of the management is to foster workplace justice. This is due to the fact that these elements are produced differently and emerge from different managerial actions (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 36).

Distributive Justice (DJ)

Distributive justice is the first component of organizational justice because it lends credence to the allotments gained by selected employees within the organization. To be precise, distributive justice emphasizes that all employees cannot get equal treatment because outcomes are distributed discriminately at the workplace. In some cases, roles may be distributed in a just manner. This can happen when the most experienced and qualified employee gets a promotion. In other cases, this may not happen especially when an employee gets a promotion because of his/her political connection with the senior management (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 37).

Distributive justice is best explained by the equity theory. According to this theory, distributive justice entails “something proportionate,” which is defined as “equality of ratios” (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 38). The subsequent equation depicts the equity theory:

O₁/I₁=O₂/I₂

Where O₁= outcomes (employee’s income); I₁= inputs (efforts of employee); O₂= income of the referent; and I₂= efforts of the referent. When an employee receives a higher pay than he deserves, the equation becomes imbalanced. As a result, the employee must increase his/her work rate (input) to achieve parity. These outcomes have real-world applications. For instance, Greenberg (1988) evaluated the practicability of equity theory by studying executives who were promoted or demoted on a provisional basis. The findings revealed that those who got promoted improved their performance (input) while those demoted showed signs of reduced productivity. However, these achievements and losses vanished when the executives were reinstated to their original positions (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 37).

Procedural Justice (PJ)

Procedural justice refers to the manner in which the management allocates outcomes. Procedural justice institutes certain codes that govern and stipulate the functions of each employee within the decision-making framework of the organization (Moorman, Blakely & Niehoff 1998, p. 352). Procedural justice is an important component that promotes and preserves the legitimacy of an organization. Some employees are bound to benefit from some outcomes when the management makes a number of staff decisions. For example, outcome favorability influences the manner in which employees are satisfied with a particular decision. In addition, procedural justice decides the insight of employees pertaining to the organization. For instance, employees will be loyal to the organization and behave appropriately if the process is believed to be fair (Moorman, Blakely & Niehoff 1998, p. 352).

Interactional Justice (IJ)

Interactional justice refers to the manner in which individuals treat each other. In other words, an employee is considered ‘interactionally’ just if he/she desists from making inflammatory remarks and shares information appropriately. Interactional justice consists of two elements. The first element is known as informational justice. It suggests that an individual should be honest and provide adequate information when things deviate from the initial plan. Alternatively, informational justice certifies the way in which employees spread information that clarifies the measures used to allocate specific outcomes. The second element is known as interpersonal justice. It emphasizes that employees should treat each other with dignity and respect (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 39).

Previous studies have shown that there is a correlation between these three components of organizational justice. However, these components relate in different ways. For instance, a study by Goldman sought to explore the relationship between OJ and prejudice incidences at the workplace. According to him, when interaction, procedural and distributive justices are small, the chances of going legal are more. However, this probability dropped dramatically when one of the three components was deemed to be present. This means that the presence of at least one component of organizational justice can partially alleviate the adverse outcomes of organizational injustice. For example, a procedural injustice will attract minimal adverse outcomes if distributive justice is prominent (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 39; Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 36).

Perceived Support

Perceived Organizational Support (POS)

Organizations normally value workers’ commitment and loyalty. Workers who are usually expressively attached to the organization exhibit excellent performance, minimal absenteeism and reduced turnover rate (Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002, p. 698). It is important to mention that workers usually value commitment shown by the organization. When organizations consider the interests of their employees (such as promotion, raise in salary, perks and benefits, proximity to data, and other help required to perform certain jobs), employees are satisfied and the output is better (Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002, p. 699).

According to the organization support theory, the organization’s willingness to reward employees (as a result of their efforts at workplace) depends on its level of commitment towards the employees (Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002, p. 699). Therefore, perceived organizational support is a form of assurance that employees get from the organization that it will meet their social, emotional and financial needs to enable them perform their duties effectively. To put it in another way, perceived organizational support occurs when the organization addresses the social and financial needs of the employees (Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002, p. 700).

Organizational support theory posits that the development of perceived organizational support is enhanced by workers predisposition to allot organization’s human-like traits. Therefore, the action taken by the organization’s agent is normally viewed (by the workers) as a sign of commitment by the organization (Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002, p. 700). The assignment of human-like characteristics of the organization is linked to its legal, ethical, and fiscal obligation through the agents. This is also linked to the organizational policies, customs and culture that ensures prosperity and regulates the general conduct and the power the agents have over the workers in general. Organizations’ reaction to their employees’ performance generally gives an idea whether it is appreciated or not (Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002, p. 702).

Perceived Supervisory Support (PSS)

Since supervisors act as organization’s agents, the way they treat the employees also contributes to the perceived organizational support. This mainly depends on the level to which they are identified by the workers in the organization (Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002, p. 703). Perceived supervisory support is mainly concerned with the views of the employees regarding the contribution of the supervisors on their overall well-being. In view of the fact that supervisors act as agents of the organization who are tasked to direct and evaluate subordinates, the way they treat employees is viewed as an indication of the organization’s support or lack of it. In addition, workers understand that they must report their progress to the top management and, therefore influence the management’s perception regarding employees (Sucharski & Rhoades 2002, p. 565).

According to the organizational support theory, perceived organization support is positively correlated with perceived supervisory support (Sucharski & Rhoades 2002, p. 565). In addition, the two variables have a reverse causal relationship with perceived organizational support. In other words, employees’ view that the organization values their input and cares about their socio-emotional and financial well-being might result into employees believing that supervisors (who are organization’s agents) are accommodating or friendly towards them (Sucharski & Rhoades 2002, p. 566).

Perceived organizational support acts as a mediator of the relationship between perceived supervisor support and the turnover rate of the employees (Sucharski & Rhoades 2002, p. 565). Organizational support theory posits that perceived supervisor support reduces the voluntary turnover rate among the employees since it promotes the perceived organizational support. Perceived organizational support resulting from perceived supervisor support increases employees’ commitment by strengthening their obligations towards achieving the company’s goals and minimizing withdrawal behavior (Sucharski & Rhoades 2002, p. 567).

Sucharski and Rhoades (2002, p. 567) reported that perceived supervisor support enhances the obligation of employees to the supervisor and the organization. There are a number of studies that have established a relationship between perceived supervisory support and increased performance among employees. Sucharski and Rhoades (2002, p. 568) report that low perceived supervisor support increases employees’ convictions that they can only solve a given challenge by alternating supervisors or minimizing their contacts with the current supervisor while performing their duties. However, by minimizing perceived organizational support, low perceived supervisor support generally would have a negative effect on the future of the employees.

A study conducted by Sucharski and Rhoades (2002, p. 572) reported that the most favored supervisors by the organization are believed to be the main representative of the organization’s character. Therefore, the support received from such supervisors has great impact on perceived organizational support. Employees’ perception regarding the supervisor depends on the supervisor’s individual judgment, their influence on major decisions, the support they receive from the organization, and their independence when carrying out their duties.

Trust

Trust In Organization (TO)

Trust refers to the readiness of an individual/group to become susceptible to another individual/group on the basis of the expected positive outcomes. Based on the discussion above, trust can be predicted by the three components of organizational justice. For example, a study by Colquitt and Conlon (2001) reported that the relationship between trust and awareness of just processes was over 0.60. This means that justly treated workers are likely to remain loyal to their organization (Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002, p. 698). Employees who are justly treated are more likely to abide by the workplace codes and behave unselfishly towards their colleagues (Cohen-Charash & Spector 2001). As a matter of fact, employees can adjust their behavior accordingly by treating well those people who treated them justly (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 40).

Trust In Supervisor (TS)

The role of trust in supervisor has been investigated in several disciplines such as organizational communication, conflict management, job attitudes, and organizational relationships. There are several theories that attempt to explain the procedures that define the nature of trust in leadership/supervisor. For example, one theory lends credence on the nature of the relationship between the supervisor and employees. In this regard, trust in supervisor is described as relevant with respect to the process of social exchange. In other words, employees perceive the relationship with their supervisor as one based on goodwill and trust. Trust in supervisor emphasizes more on productive social relationships than the typical economic contract. Issues regarding trust in the supervisor are critical since the supervisor has the power to make decisions that can considerably affect the ability of an employee to accomplish his/her objectives including work assignments as well as promotions (Colquitt & Conlon 2001, p. 391).

Research Model and Hypotheses

In light of the conceptual background, the hypotheses proposed to study the relationships between the constructs in this study are as follows:

H1A. Distributive Justice has a direct effect on Perceived Organizational Support.
H1B. Distributive Justice has a direct effect on Trust in Organization.
H2A. Procedural Justice has a direct effect on Perceived Organizational Support.
H2B. ‘Procedural Justice’ affects TO directly.
H3A. Interactional Justice has a direct effect on Perceived Supervisory Support.
H3B. Interactional Justice has a direct effect on Trust in Supervisor.
H4. Perceived Supervisory Support is related to the Perceived Organizational Support.
H5. Perceived Organizational Support has a direct effect on Trust in Organization.
H6. Perceived Supervisory Support has a direct effect on Trust in Supervisor.

The below Figure No. 01 illustrates the proposed model to study the hypothesis and shows the hypotheses paths considered for this study:

Figure No. 01: Model of the relationship between Organizational Justice, Perceived Support, and Trust.

Research Methodology

In the previous chapter, the reader was provided with a critical review of literature that is available in this field. The aim of the critical review was to locate the current study within the larger field by identifying and understanding the link between organizational justice, perceived support and trust (of the employees on their organization and superiors). This particular chapter (Research Methodology) an analysis of the steps that were taken to collect and analyze data for this study is provided. The chapter is divided into three main segments: Methodology adopted, Data collection tools, and Data analysis tools.

Methodology Adopted

The research methodology adopted for this study was qualitative in nature. The researcher has aimed to conduct the research in accordance with the qualitative analysis as it will highlight the grounds that provide the researcher to adopt applicable research methodology in accordance with previous research in this area that would be chosen through critical appraisal. This segment will further enhance the researcher’s understanding on how the research on the organizational justice will be conducted. It will also guide him about data assembly & treatment and qualitative analysis, thereby explaining the process and the limitations of this study.

The purpose of qualitative research methodology is to understand the underlying reasons and motives, whereas quantitative research methodology is used to collect primary data and simplify the results from a sample with regard to the population of interest. In qualitative research methodology, a small number of representative cases are considered, whereas in quantitative research methodology, the representative cases are large. In qualitative research methodology, an unstructured questionnaire is used to collect data, whereas quantitative research methodology uses a structured questionnaire. The data analysis method in qualitative research methodology is non-statistical because it helps in descriptive thesis, whereas in quantitative research methodology, it has to be statistical with an option to choose methods. Qualitative research methodology will also be able to address the specific problem in a better manner. The researcher will be able to involve the views of global scholars. Since the issue of organizational justice is a global problem, it is imperative to know the global perspectives of scholars. Considering the aforementioned explanation about the differences in qualitative and quantitative research methodologies, the researcher felt it convenient and necessary to adopt the qualitative research methodology for this research.

Measures were chosen based on their relationships and on the proposed hypotheses for this study. All measures provided reliable internal consistency and construct validity.

Section One of the Questionnaire

Section One included a number of demographic measures on the first page, including Gender, Nationality, Department, Educational Level, Tenure, and age of the employee. The Gender is represented numerically as Male=1, and Female=2. The Nationality is represented numerically as Saudis=1, Non-Saudis=2. For Education, Tenure and Age, the respondents were given freedom to choose among 5 possible choices for each category which were represented numerically by values ranging from 1 to 5.

Section Two of the Questionnaire

The questions under section two of the questionnaire provided respondents the freedom to choose among 5 possible choices for each question which were represented numerically by values ranging from 1 to 5. Section two included seven (7) parts as follows:

Part 1: Composed of twenty (20) questions to measure the Organizational Justice constructs:
Five (5) questions designed to measure the Distributive Justice, six (6) questions designed to measure the Procedural Justice, and nine (9) questions designed to measure the Procedural Justice, which were developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993).
Part 2: Includes eight questions aimed at evaluating the Perceived Organizational Support which were developed by R. Eisenberger, J. Cummings, S. Armeli, and P. Lynch (1997).
Part 3: Includes five questions aimed at evaluating the Perceived Supervisory Support which were also developed by R. Eisenberger, J. Cummings, S. Armeli, and P. Lynch (1997).
Part 4: Composed of seven (7) questions to measure the Trust in Organization which were developed by Robinson (1996).
Part 5: Composed of Six (6) questions to measure the Trust in Supervisors which were developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990).
Part 6: Composed of Six (6) questions to measure the Employees’ Commitment to the Organization.
Part 7: Composed of three (3) questions to measure the Employees’ Turn-Over intentions.

Data from Parts 6 and 7 were collected as additional information for future potential use.

Data Collection Tools

A Structured Interview Questionnaire (SIQ) was used to collect the required information. The questions included details of the respondents’ name, age, gender, marital status, nationality, educational qualification, etc.

The questions of the questionnaire were originally in English Language and were later translated to Arabic language as well. The questionnaire included both languages; English questions on the left side, Arabic questions on the right side and multiple choices in the middle, with the selections identified in both languages at top of the table.

Informed consent was obtained from all the respondents and they were assured of confidentiality. Informed consent means that the potential participants were made aware of the nature of the study and the form f information that was required. The advantages and disadvantages of the study were also made available for the respondents. As a standard norm of qualitative research, the study kept its passionate attention on two ethical issues: representation of truth and confidentiality of the respondent group. The truth alignment would assist to avoid any bias and the confidentiality aspect would strengthen freedom of expression by the respondents.

The sample for this study was chosen from a specific organization, Saudi Arabian Oil and Gas Company, which has a diverse workforce. The questionnaires were distributed to the employees by the researcher and were collected within one day of the distribution. 200 questionnaires were distributed, out of which, 142 responses were received with a responsiveness percentage of 71%. The sample included only subordinates; supervisory level and above were not included in the study.

One of the obstacles that resulted in decreasing the responsiveness percentage was that some of the employees were reluctant to fill the questionnaires and were conservative in sharing the requested information since it was related to the organization and their direct supervisors.

Data Analysis Tools

The data was collected and entered into IBM SPSS Statistics version 21. Analysis of the data was conducted utilizing the function available in the software to measure the required outputs such as mean, correlation, and regression to conduct this study.

The mean of each of the data collected for each construct was calculated and added to the study to conduct the related analysis. After this, the correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to measure the relationship among the constructs. Moreover, the significance level (P) was calculated to measure how significantly the constructs are correlated and to determine the level of reliability of the collected data to conduct this study.

Correlation and Regression among other measures were measured for different models of the hypothesis to determine the relationship among the constructs to evaluate the collected data and study the proposed hypothesis.

Results and Discussions

In order to understand organizational behavior, it is imperative to know the kind of justice that is being practiced within an organization. Past couple of years have witnessed escalating attention being given to organizational justice and the impact that it has on the overall performance of employees and the organization. This study aims at understanding the relation between organizational justice and organizational outcomes.

Results

Demographic Data

Table 1. Study Sample.

Item	Number	Percentage
Gender Male Female	103 93	72.5 27.5
Nationality Saudis Non-Saudis	125 17	88 12
Education High-School or Less Diploma Bachelor Degree Master Degree PHD and Above	5 15 92 29 1	3.5 10.6 64.8 20.4 0.7
Tenure < or = 3 yrs Between 4 & 5 yrs Between 6 & 10 yrs Between 11 & 14 yrs > or = to 15 yrs	26 38 37 18 23	18.3 26.8 26.1 12.7 16.2
Age < or = 25 yrs Between 26 & 30 yrs Between 31 & 34 yrs Between 36 & 40 yrs > > 40 Years	24 47 25 15 31	16.9 33.1 17.6 10.6 21.8

From the demographic section, we observed that different criteria had different class of people who constituted the maximum number of respondents; as per gender, males (72.5%), according to nationality, Saudis (88%), education wise, those with a Bachelor’s Degree (64.8%), tenure wise, those with four to five years’ term (26.8%), and age wise, those between 26 and 30 years (33.1%). From these results, it can be understood that the study was mainly concentrated on Saudi’s youth population (mainly males) who were graduates and had been working for at least 4 to 5 years.

Table 2. Mean, Standard Deviation, Corelation, and Reliability Measures of the Variables Used in This Study.

No.

Variable

Mean

STD

Distributive justice

16.81

3.82

α0.77

Procedural Justice

20.35

4.64

0.48**

α0.86

Interactional Justice

32.1

7.5

0.475**

0.858*

α0.84

Perceived Organizational Support

25.77

5.65

0.514**

0.417*

0.484**

α0.84

Perceived Supervisory Support

18.31

3.75

0.361**

0.701*

0.722*

0.491**

α0.85

Trust In Organization

23.37

5.93

0.436**

0.367**

0.382**

0.779**

0.369**

α0.87

Trust In Supervisors

22.35

4.97

0.437**

0.472**

0.754**

0.498**

0.765**

0.442**

α0.88

Employees’ Commitment

22.48

6.53

0.380**

0.398**

0.445**

0.640**

0.411**

0.644**

0.581**

α0.95

Turn-Over Intentions

6.7

3.26

-0.369**

-0.405**

-0.407**

-0.626**

-0.5**

-0.671

α0.85

** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Model No 1

Testing the Relationships Between Distributive Justice and Perceived Organizational Support (H1A), and Procedural Justice And Perceived Organizational Support (H2A):

Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice were identified as independent variables, where the Perceived Organizational Support was identified as a dependent variable.

Perceaved Organizational Support

Table 3: Relationship Between DJ and Pj With POS.

	Beta (β)	Significance Level (P)
Distributive Justice	0.413	0.000 (P<0.05)
Procedural Justice	0.248	0.002 (P<0.05)

Adjusted R Square=0.306, measures the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable accounted for by the explanatory dependent variables. As a result, 31% of the variance in the Perceived Organizational Support is explained by Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice.

F (anova) =32.033 and its significance= 0.000 (P<0.05), which indicates that the model is valid for the study.

According to those figures, the Perceived Organizational Support is influenced by the Distributive Justice by 41% and by the Procedural Justice by 25%. According to these results, both Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice influence the Perceived Organizational Support. This shows that hypotheses H1A & H2A are supported.

Model No 2

Testing Relationships between Distributive Justice and the Employees’ Trust in Organization (H1B), and Procedural Justice and the Employees’ Trust in the Organization (H2B):

Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice were identified as independent variables, where the Employees’ Trust in Organization was identified as a dependent variable.

Trust In Organization

Table 4. Relationship between Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice with Trust in Organization.

	Beta (β)	Significance Level (P)
Distributive Justice	0.344	0.000 (P<0.05)
Procedural Justice	0.227	0.006 (P<0.05)

Adjusted R Square = 0.22. As a result, 22% of the variance in the Employees’ Trust in the Organization is explained by Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice.

F (anova) = 21.123 and its significance = 0.000 (P<0.05), which indicates that the model is valid for the study.

According to those figures, the Employees’ Trust in the Organization is influenced by the Distributive Justice (34.4%) and by the Procedural Justice (23%). According to these results, both Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice influence the Employees’ Trust in the Organization. This shows that hypotheses H1B & H2B are supported.

However, this also indicates that the organization must focus on the factors contributing in improving the Distributive Justice to increase the level of the Employees’ Trust in the Organization.

Model 3

Testing the relationship between Interactional Justice and Perceived Supervisory Support (H3A):

Interactional Justice was identified as an independent variable, where the Perceived Supervisory Support was identified as a dependent variable.

Interactional Justice

The correlation coefficient (r) = 0.722 at a significance level of 0.000 (P<0.05), where Coefficient of Determination (r²) = 0.52. This indicates that the variables are significantly correlated and that 52% of the total variation in the Perceived Supervisory Support is influenced by the Interactional Justice. This shows that hypothesis H3A is supported.

Model 4

Testing the relationship between Perceived Supervisory Support and Trust in Supervisors (H6), and Interactional Justice and Trust in Supervisors (H3B):

Perceived Supervisory Support and Interactional Justice were identified as independent variables, where the Employees’ Trust in Supervisors was identified as a dependent variable.

Trust In Supervisors

Table 5. Relationship between PSS and IJ with TS.

	Beta (β)	Significance Level (P)
Perceived Supervisory Support	0.461	0.000 (P<0.05)
Interactional Justice	0.421	0.000 (P<0.05)

Adjusted R Square = 0.665. As a result, 67% of the variance in the Employees’ Trust in the Supervisors is explained by Perceived Supervisory Support and Interactional Justice.

F (anova) = 140.99 and its significance = 0.000 (P<0.05), which indicates that the model is valid for the study.

According to those figures, the Employees’ Trust in the Supervisors is influenced by the Perceived Supervisory Support by 46% and by the Interactional Justice by 42%. According to these results, both Perceived Supervisory Support and Interactional Justice influence the Employees’ Trust in the Supervisors. This shows that hypotheses H6 & H3B are supported.

However, this also indicates that the organization must focus on the factors contributing in improving the Interactional Justice to increase the level of the Perceived Supervisory Support which both in return increase the level of the Employees’ Trust in the Supervisors.

Model 5

Testing the relationship between the Perceived Organizational Support and the Perceived Supervisory Support (H4):

Testing the relationship between the Perceived Organizational Support and the Perceived Supervisory Support

The correlation coefficient (r) = 0.491 at a significance level of 0.000 (P<0.05), where Coefficient of Determination (r²) = 0.241. This indicates that the variables are significantly correlated and that they are influenced by 24% by each other. This shows that hypothesis H4 is supported.

Model 6

Testing the relationship between the Perceived Organizational Support and the Trust in Organization (H5):

the relationship between the Perceived Organizational Support and the Trust in Organization

The correlation coefficient (r) = 0.779 at a significance level of 0.000 (P<0.05), where Coefficient of Determination (r²) = 0.607. This indicates that the variables are significantly correlated and that 61% of the total variation in the Employees’ Trust in Organization is influenced by the Perceived Organizational Support. This shows that hypothesis H4 is supported.

Discussion

The study results from Model 1 show that 31% of the variance in the Perceived Organizational Support is influenced by Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice which is supported by Rhoades & Eisenberger, (2002, p. 703, 707). This indicates that the organization must focus on the factors contributing in improving the Distributive Justice to increase the level of the Employees’ Perceived Organizational Support.

The study results from Model 2 show that 22% of the variance in the Employees’ Trust in the Organization is explained by Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice which is supported by Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland (2007, p. 39). This indicates that the organization must focus on the factors contributing in improving the Distributive Justice to increase the level of the Employees’ Trust in the Organization.

The study results from Model 3 show that the Interactional Justice and Perceived Organizational Support are significantly correlated and that 52% of the total variation in the Perceived Supervisory Support is influenced by the Interactional Justice. In addition, Model 4 shows that 67% of the variance in the Employees’ Trust in the Supervisors is explained by Perceived Supervisory Support and Interactional Justice. Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland (2007) indicated that when the supervisors treated their employees with Interactional Justice which is a predictor to trust, “the leader and the subordinate had a higher quality relationship” (p. 39 & 40).

The study results from Model 5 show that Perceived Organization Support is positively correlated with Perceived Supervisory Support (Sucharski & Rhoades, 2002, p. 565, 570).

The study results suggest that Procedural justice and Distributive Justice are strongly correlated to perceived organizational support, which in turn is correlated to trust in organization. Additionally, Interactional Justice is strongly correlated with Perceived Supervisory Support, which in turn is correlated with trust in supervisors. Moreover, it was also suggested that Perceived Organizational Support and Perceived Supervisory Support are strongly correlated. As a result of this study, Organizational Justice constructs, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, and Interactional Justice, are strongly positively correlated with trust in supervisors and organization. This will contribute to the employees’ performance and commitment to the organization (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007, p. 36).

Individual and organizational deviations were considered while testing the various constructs of organizational justice. It was noticed that when incentives provided by organizations are according to the requirement of the employees, the subsequent motivation (among the employees) is better. On the contrary, if the fundamental requirements of employees are not met, there are less chances of their contributing towards the progress of their organization. Frequent performance evaluations bring forth the contribution of employees towards their organization’s development. It is understood that employees have different evaluation results. Those with good evaluation ought to be happy, while those getting poor evaluation can have a negative impact on their behavior.

In spite of the fact that poor evaluation report means that employees have poor performance, the negative impact can be averted if the situation is handled efficiently by the superiors. Employees’ demotivation can be converted into motivation if the results of the evaluation performance report are disclosed in a positive manner. Every human being has different capabilities and it is not necessary that everyone performs at the same level of excellence. There might be other areas where employees having poor evaluation can perform better. So, the main thing is to identify that potential among employees. This job can be performed well by efficient leaders. Leaders should be aware that repeated mention of poor performance further demotivates employees. There are chances that such employees, despite performing low, might pretend to have achieved more. This means that they portray false motivation, which can be harmful to them as well as the organization.

When employees are confident that evaluation of their performance is being conducted in a fair manner then in spite of poor evaluation, they will feel motivated and decide to perform better in future. On the contrary, if employees feel that there has been injustice in evaluation, their performance comes down. Moreover, their reaction to such injustice is not targeted towards the source alone but the complete organization.

It was noticed that the employees considered interpersonal justice as the deciding factor of organizational justice. Many employees were of the opinion that their superiors treated them with less dignity. Interpersonal justice depicts the level of graciousness and respect that is prevalent within any organization. Employees’ perception about interpersonal justice can be a decisive factor for organizations’ performance (Colquitt et al. 2006). This happens because if interpersonal justice is fair within an organization, then in spite of unfavorable conditions, the employees will perform well.

Trust of employees on their superiors and organization also plays a crucial role in increasing the performance of organizations. Higher degree of employees’ trust in their superiors affects the manner in which the employees identify the service received by them and subsequently given to the customers (Tzafrir & Gur 2007).

Procedural justice also has an impact on the overall performance of organizations. Unfortunately, this particular aspect is not given due importance within organizations. There are a lot of inequalities being practiced within organizations as far as aspects such as promotions, salary and incentives are concerned. Organizations have to understand that better procedural justice can guarantee employee commitment (Jafari, Shafiepur & Yarmohammadian 2011).

Conclusion

The main intention behind this study was to build and investigate a model that tests the association between the organizational justice constructs, the employees’ perceived support from the organization and their supervisors, and the employees’ trust in the organization and their supervisors.

The result of this study indicates that distributive justice contributes the most in the employees’ perceived support from the organization, and the employees’ trust in the organization. In addition, the study also showed that distributive justice has its influence on those variables.

Additionally, the study proved that interactional justice plays a major role in the employees’ perceived supervisory support and trust in their supervisors. As a result, in order for the organization to increase the level of perceived organizational support and trust in the organization from the employees’ point of view, the organization should focus more on developing and educating a culture and a work environment that is recognized by equity and fairness to the employees. This will affect the morals and work attitudes of the employees which in return pay off to the organization by increasing the level of employees’ output.

Additionally, the study on the other hand, provided evidence that the employees’ perceived supervisory support and their trust in their supervisors are strongly related to interactional justice. Moreover, the perceived supervisory support is interrelated with the perceived organizational support and as such, it is essential to improve the interactional justice in order to increase the level of perceived supervisory support and trust in supervisors, which in return contributes to the perceived organizational support and the trust in the organization. In other words, the organization should employ considerable efforts to educate and improve the supervisors to be just and fair in their interaction with their employees and to developing trust and honesty relationship between the employees and their supervisors. This will result in increasing the employees’ performance and commitment to the organization.

An organization is a sort of system in which employees (human beings) should be considered to be positive features rather than a burden. It is due to the employees’ efforts that organizations perform well. Without the commitment of employees, organizations can not proceed in their endeavors of performing better. Employees need to be handled and treated with great care. Their morale and contentment are two aspects that can affect any organization’s performance. Contentment from job reflects on the behavior of employees within office. The level of contentment varies between extremes of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Even though the researcher took great care in informing the respondents about the confidentiality ethical consideration, some employees were reluctant to participate and that’s the reason why the turn out percentage was 71%. Even those who agreed to participate in the questionnaire cannot be guaranteed to have answered truly. They were afraid that in case their superiors came to know about their participation and the answers that they gave, they might have to face some strict measures against them. So it is quite possible that in order to be in the good books of their superiors, the respondents might have given such answers that were in favor of the organization. Considering this particular issue, it is possible that the gathered information might not be correct.

References

Baldwin, S 2006, Organizational justice, Web.

Bies, R & Tripp, T 2001, A passion for justice: the rationality and morality of revenge, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Cohen-Charash, Y & Spector, P E 2001, ‘The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 278-321.

Colquitt, J & Conlon, D 2001, ‘On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 386-400.

Colquitt, J, Scott, B, Judge T & Shaw J 2006, ‘Justice and personality: using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects’, Organizational behavior and human decision processes, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 110-127.

Cropanzano, R, Bowen, D & Gilliland, S 2007, ‘The management of organizational justice’, Academy of Management Perspective, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 34-48.

Eisenberger, R, Cummings, J, Armeli, S & Lynch P 1997.

Ellard, J & Skarlicki, D 2002, A third-party observer’s reactions to employee mistreatment: motivational and cognitive processes in deservingness assessments, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.

Folger, R 2001, Justice as deonance, Information Age Publishing, New York.

Jafari, P, Shafiepur, F & Yarmohammadian, M 2011, ‘Designing an adjusted model of organizational justice for educational system in Esfahan City (Iran)’, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1696-1704.

Moorman, R, Blakely, G & Niehoff, B 1998, ‘Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 351-357.

Neihoff, B P & Moorman, R H 1993, ‘Justice as a moderator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 527-556.

Podsakoff, P M, MacKenzie, S B, Moorman, R H, & Fetter, R 1990, ‘Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors’, Leadership Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 107-142.

Rhoades, L & Eisenberger, R 2002, ‘Perceived Organizational Support: A Review of the Literature’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 698–714.

Robinson, S L 1996, ‘Trust and breach of psychological contract’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 574-599.

Stitka, L, Winquist, J & Hutchinson, S 2003, ‘Are outcome justice and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review’, Social Justice Research, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 309-341.

Sucharski, L & Rhoades, L 2002, ‘Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 565–573.

Tyler, T & Blader, S 2000, Cooperation in groups: procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement, Psychology Press, Philadelphia.

Tyler, T & Smith, H 1998, Social justice and social movements, McGraw-Hill, Boston.

Weiss, H, Suckow, K & Cropanzano, R 1999, ‘Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 786-794.

Tzafrir, S & Gur, B 2007, ‘HRM practices and perceived service quality: the role of trust as a mediator’, Research & Practice in HRM, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1-20.

Click Here To Order Now!

Abstract