pj-1615

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: DO FAIRNESS

PERCEPTIONS INFLUENCE EMPLOYEE CITIZENSHIP?

by

NOURA FAROUK TABBARA

A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Business Administration to the Suliman S. Olayan School of Business

to the American University of Beirut


RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: DO FAIRNESS

PERCEPTIONS INFLUENCE EMPLOYEE CITIZENSHIP?

by

NOURA FAROUK TABBARA

Approved by: ______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Yusuf Sidani, Associate Professor First Reader Suliman S. Olayan School of Business ______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Yehia Kamel, Assistant Professor Second Reader Suliman S. Olayan School of Business Date of project presentation: June 10, 2010


PROJECT RELEASE FORM

I, Noura Farouk Tabbara √ authorize the American University of Beirut to supply copies of my project to libraries or

individuals upon request. do not authorize the American University of Beirut to supply copies of my project to

libraries or individuals for a period of two years starting with the date of the thesis/dissertation/project defense.

____________________ Signature

____________________ Date

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My recognition and gratitude are addressed to Dr. Sidani & Dr. Kamel for their support and help.

Special thanks to my family and friends who supported me through my MBA journey

and who provided me with their unconditional love.

v

AN ABSTRACT OF THE PROJECT OF

Noura Farouk Tabbara for Master of Business Administration

Major: Business Administration Title: Relationships Between Organizational Justice And Organizational Citizenship

Behavior: Do Fairness Perceptions Influence Employee Citizenship?

The aim of this research is to study the relationship between Organizational Justice and

Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The main question is: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? The project starts with a brief literature review of past research done on the subject and other related subjects.

Chapter II starts with a definition of Organizational Justice along with its three dimensions: Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice. Next, a view of the major factors that influence Justice Perceptions such as Organizational Outcomes, Organizational Practices and the Characteristics of the perceiver is depicted. Then a list of the outcomes of Justice Perceptions that have been mostly researched in the past years is presented among which is OCB which is the outcome of interest to our study.

Chapter III outlines the research’s methodology. It begins with an overview of the sample under study. It describes the measures used in the questionnaire to assess OCB, Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction. Following that, it identifies the tools used to analyze the data collected and submit the results of the analysis.

In Chapter IV, there is a discussion of the findings of the study in terms of the hypotheses that are supported by the testes conducted and it compares same to previous literature.

Finally, Chapter V points out the limitations of the study, the managerial implications and the recommendations for future research on the subject.

vi

CONTENTS Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS …………..………………………………...

iv

ABSTRACT …..……………………………………………………………

v

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………..

II. LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………

A. What is Organizational Justice? ………………………………...

1. Distributive Justice …….……………………………….. 2. Procedural Justice ……………..……………………….. 3. Interactional Justice …………………………………….

B. Factors Influencing Justice Perceptions ………………………...

1. Organizational Outcome ……………………………….. 2. Organizational Practices ……………………………….. 3. Characteristic of the Perceiver ………………………….

a. Demographic Characteristics …………………... b. Personality Traits ……………………………….

C. Outcomes of Justice Perceptions ……………………………….

1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior …………………... 2. Work Performance ……………………………………... 3. Counterproductive Work Behavior and Withdrawal

Behavior ………………………………………………... 4. Attitudinal and Affective Reaction toward Specific

Outcomes, the Organization and the Supervisor ……….. 5. Organizational Commitment …………………………... 6. Organizational Trust …………………………………… 7. Turnover Intentions ……………………………………..

D. Distributive & Procedural Justice as predictors of Job

Satisfaction ……………………………………………………...

E. The Influence of cognitive and affective based Job Satisfaction

1

2 2

3 3 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 9 9

10

11

12 12 13 13

14

vii

measures on the relationship between Satisfaction and OCB…...

F. Hypotheses ……………………………………………………...

III. METHODOLOGY ………………………………………….. A. Participants and Settings ………………………………………..

B. Measures ………………………………………………………..

1. Organizational Justice …………………………………. 2. Job Satisfaction ………………………………………… 3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior …………………..

C. Data Analyses and Results ……………………………………..

1. Frequencies …………………………………………….. 2. Factor Analysis ………………………………………… 3. Reliability ……………………………………………… 4. T-Test ………………………………………………….. 5. Regression Analysis ……………………………………

IV. DISCUSSION ………………………………………………. A. Job Satisfaction & OCB ……………………………………….

B. Organizational Justice & OCB …………………………………

C. Organizational Justice & Job Satisfaction ……………………..

D. Procedural Justice & Distributive Justice ………………………

V. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………… A. Limitations ……..……………………………………………….

B. Managerial Implications ………………………………………..

C. Future Research …………………………………………………

15

15

17

17

17

17 18 18

19

19 19 21 22 23

25

26

26

27

27

29

29

29

30

viii

Appendix

I. TABLE 1: DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRIBUTES OF THE STUDY SAMPLE …………………………………..

II. TABLE 2: FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR OCB……..

III. TABLE 3: FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ……………………....

IV. TABLE 4: FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR JOB

SATISFACTION………………………………………….…..

V. QUESTIONNAIRE ………………………………………… BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………..

31

33

38

43

45

49

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this research is to study the effect of Organizational Justice on Organizational

Citizenship Behavior and Job Satisfaction. The main question is: Whether Organizational

injustice will affect employee citizenship or not? The project starts with a brief literature review

of past research done on the subject and other related subjects.

Chapter II starts with a definition of Organizational Justice along with its three

dimensions: Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice. Next, a view of the

major factors that influence Justice Perceptions such as Organizational Outcomes,

Organizational Practices and the Characteristics of the perceiver is depicted. Then a list of the

outcomes of Justice Perceptions that have been mostly researched in the past years is presented

among which is OCB which is the outcome of interest to our study.

Chapter III outlines the research’s methodology. It begins with an overview of the sample

under study. It then describes the measures used in the questionnaire to assess OCB,

Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction. Following that, we identify the tools used to analyze

the data collected and submit the results of the analysis.

In Chapter IV, there is a discussion of the findings of the study in terms of the hypotheses

that are supported by the testes conducted and it compares same to previous literature.

Finally, in Chapter V it points out the limitations of our study, the managerial

implications and the recommendations for future research on the subject.

2

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

A. What is Organizational Justice?

Organizational justice is best described as the role of fairness that is directly related to the

workplace. In recent years, the study of work-place justice has been growing. Even though

research on justice began with Adams (1963,1965), most of the organizational justice research

was not published until 1990.

Research on justice started with Adams’s work on Equity Theory. In his Equity Theory,

Adams (1963, 1965) studied distributive justice which is the perceived fairness of outcomes. But

study shifted from distributive justice to procedural justice in the following years, because

Adam’s theory did not explain fully how people really reacted to perceived injustice (Crosby,

1976; Folger, 1984). Consequently, the interest in procedural justice grew and so did research of

the subject. The reason of interest in distributive justice was that findings showed that the

process implemented in allocating or distributing rewards was sometimes more important than

the rewards themselves. In the meantime, another type of justice, interactional justice, emerged

that required additional study (Bies & Moag, 1986). It involves the relationship between the

authorities in the organization, who are implementing the procedures, and the employees. So

basically, it is related to the way the supervisors communicate with their subordinates and the

way they treat them.

In summary, organizational justice is the fairness of the organization’s rewards, procedures

and treatment of employees. Three sources of organizational justice are usually named:

3

1. Distributive Justice

As mentioned earlier, the concept of organizational justice stemmed from Adam’s (1963,

1965) research on distributive justice. Adam expected distributive justice to influence the

organization as a whole since it was the related to the perception of the fairness of organizational

outcome. From there on, researchers started to study the influence or impact of distributive

justice on several organizational outcomes such as pay satisfaction, promotion opportunities and

work performance (Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Some even went as far as studying the

cognitive, affective and behavioral reactions of employees to specific organizational outcomes.

There studies showed that perceptions of injustice of certain organizational outcomes will affect

the employees’ emotions, cognitions and behaviors (Adams, 1965; Austin & Walster, 1974;

Walster et al., 1978; Weiss, Suckow, & Cropanzano, 1999).

2. Procedural Justice

Previous research in social psychology emphasized mainly on the results of reward

allocation. However; recent study shifted its emphasis on the procedures adopted in allocating

the organizational rewards. (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut& Walker, 1975). Accordingly, a co-

determinant, of organizational justice emerged that was procedural justice, which some

considered to be as important as distributive justice if not more important in determining

organizational justice (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Moreover, Lind & Tyler (1988) suggested that when

procedures stand for principles that are normatively accepted by people then procedural justice

will prevail. On the other hand, Leventhal (1980) came up with six rules that if followed will

4

lead to procedures that are perceived as fair by the employees. The six rules can be summarized

as follows:

a. Consistency rule, which dictates that procedures adopted in allocating rewards must be

consistent over time and among all employees.

b. Bias-Suppression rule, which dictates that decision-makers’ own self-interest should be

suppressed during the process of allocating of rewards.

c. Accuracy rule, which dictates that the information used during the process of allocating of

rewards must be accurate.

d. Correctability rule, which dictates that authorities in the organization should take action to

reverse decisions that turn out to be unfair.

e. Representativeness rule, which dictates that a true representation of the employees’ needs

and values should be considered during the allocation process.

f. Ethicality rule, which dictates that the process of reward allocation should be well-suited and

coherent with the employees’ basic moral and ethical values.

Similar to distributive justice, and since the procedures adopted by the organization

correspond to the manner in which allocation of rewards takes place in the organization, a strong

relation was also predicted between procedural justice and cognitive, affective, and behavioral

reactions of employees (Martin & Bennett, 1996; Mossholder, Bennett, Kemery, & Wesolowski,

1998a).

However, contrary to distributive justice, reactions to perceived procedural injustice are

predicted to be aimed at the organization itself and not the outcome or the person implementing

the procedure (Cropanzano & Folger, 1991; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993).

5

3. Interactional Justice

Since organizational practices involve a human factor, which is the behavior of the

implementer of the procedures in the organization, interactional justice is assumed to be a branch

of procedural justice. In view of the above, qualities such as politeness, honesty and respect,

which are the basis of the communication process between the direct organizational authority

and employee, are also predicted to be crucial and contributing factors to interactional justice

(Bies & Moag, 1986; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Moreover, interactional justice is also related to the

employee reactions mentioned in distributive justice and procedural justice which are namely

cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions but these reactions are not directed towards the

organizational outcomes nor towards the organization as a whole, but to the direct supervisors of

the employees (Bies & Moag, 1986; Cropanzano & Prehar, 1999; Masterson, Lewis-Mcclear,

Goldman, & Taylor, 2000).

Consequently, it is predicted that an employee will react negatively against the direct

supervisor, when he/she perceives any sort of interactional injustice, as opposed to negatively

reacting against the organization or the organizational outcome itself (Cropanzano & Prehar,

1999; Masterson et al., 2000).

Of course the above predictions on interactional justice are considered as true if and only

if the employee perceives that the source of injustice is the person implementing the procedures

and not the procedures themselves. However, if the employee believes that the person

implementing the procedure is part of the procedure, then the employee will perceive procedural

injustice (Bies & Moag, 1986).

6

B. Factors Influencing Justice Perceptions

It is believed that justice perceptions are influenced by three factors (1) organizational

outcomes, (2) organizational practices, and (c) characteristics of the perceiver (Cohen-Charash &

Spector, 2001).

1. Organizational Outcomes

Commitment of organizations to rules such as equity and equality will lead to perceptions

of distributive justice among employees. However, since the employees’ perceptions of justice

depend on whether the outcome is positive or negative for them, then justice in this case is said

to be an egocentric bias. (Greenberg, 1994; Messick & Sentis, 1979).

2. Organizational Practices

Commitment of organizations to procedures that allow employees to have their say in

decisions will definitely affect perceptions of procedural justice (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut &

Walker, 1978). Moreover, if the employees are treated well and an explanation was given to

them by their direct supervisors when needed, then this will also affect perceptions of

interactional justice (Bies & Moag, 1986). Accordingly, when the employee is treated with

respect and dignity, then interactional justice will be greater than when treated with disrespect

and in a rude manner, even if the outcome and the procedure implemented are the same.

7

3. Characteristics of the Perceiver

Another factor that might also influence the justice perceptions of the employee is the

employee’s characteristics themselves. These characteristics can be either demographic in nature

or traits in his/her personality:

a. Demographic characteristics.

Egocentric bias will also play a role in this case, since characteristics such as the gender,

age and race of the perceiver will influence his/her justice perceptions (Kulik, Lind, Ambrose, &

MacCoun, 1996). That is, employees will prefer and definitely perceive outcomes and

procedures that are beneficial for them as fair. For instance, an action plan that is positive and

beneficial to a certain group of people with the same demographic characteristics will be

perceived as fair as opposed to an action plan that the same group does not benefit from.

Nevertheless, justice perceptions cannot solely be explained by the interest of the same

demographic group, since another factor that plays an important role is the circumstance in

which the perceiver is in. So, making generalizations about specific demographic group

preferences is inaccurate and same demographic groups not necessarily share the same interest or

experience (Bauer, 1999; Crosby, 1984; Heilman, McCullough,&Gilbert, 1996; Major, 1994;

Truxillo & Bauer, 1999).

On the other hand, Leventhal and Lane (1970) predicted that males and females have

different perceptions of equity, in that males were more concerned with their personal benefit

regarding the allocation of rewards, while females were interested in the benefit of the whole

group. Moreover, another discrepancy between males and females was found by Brockner and

8

Adsit (1986) which was their reactions to unfair situations, where males were found to usually

react more powerfully than females do.

Finally, Major and Adams (1983) documented in their findings regarding the differences

between genders in terms of allocation of reward two reasons why perceptions of females differ

from that of males. The first reason is that what females expect is totally different from what

males expect from reward allocation. The second reason is that females evaluate their inputs to

the organization differently than the way males do.

Many explanations were given on gender differences regarding the perception of fairness,

but the truth is that the matter is much more complicated to be explained by one perspective or

the other, as different views exist and will always exist.

b. Personality traits:

These traits can be considered as:

Either, a link among how employees perceive matters to be just or not, to the way they

react upon their perceptions (Skarlicki, Folger,&Tesluk, 1999)

Or, they main factor that determines how employees react if they perceive justice or

injustice (George, 1991)

Or, control variables (Folger & Konovsky, 1989)

Wanberg, Bunce, & Gavin (1999) are some of the rare researchers who theorized that

personality might be very much related to the perception of justice. Wanberg (1999) for instance,

hypothesized that people who usually experience negative emotions for a long period of time and

on several occasions (i.e people who have a strong negative affectivity trait) are more prone to

consider or even perceive the situations they are in to be unjust as opposed to people who have a

9

weak negative affectivity treat. A similar explanation was also given by Irving and Coleman

(1999), who in turn said that people with high negative affectivity trait are most likely to

perceive things to be negative and accordingly they are most likely to perceive organizational

outcome and procedures as negative or unjust.

C. Outcomes of Justice Perceptions

Greenberg (1990b) suggested in his work that perceptions of Organizational Justice will

definitely justify several work-related behaviors. Some of the behaviors that might be based on

the employees’ perception of fairness are:

1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is one of the most talked about and studied

work-related behavior that is believed to be an outcome or a consequence of organizational

justice. OCB is defined as an informal work-related constructive and positive behavior that an

employee expresses at his own free will and without any type of formal commitment (Organ,

1990). OCB is composed of five main components which are volunteerism, boosterism,

sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and initiative. These components are believed to be predicted

by the perception of organizational justice and to be more specific, the perception of interactional

and procedural justice and not distributive justice (Moorman, 1991). Moreover, Moorman (1991)

also suggested that there is a very strong relationship between distributive justice and OCB. He

went further in saying that since OCB is an informal expression or behavior that an employee

can demonstrate, then it might as well be considered as an input that the employee can

manipulate to control his equity by reacting to perceived justice or injustice.

10

Moreover, in his work, Organ (1988b, 1990) came up with two possible reasons that

might explain why perceptions of organizational justice might have an effect on Organizational

Citizenship Behavior. The first reason was explained through Equity Theory (Adams, 1965)

which suggested the perceived injustice will buildup tension within the perceiver, which will

encourage him /her to eliminate it and maintain a kind of equilibrium between the inputs he/she

brings to the organization and the his/her peers (Adams,1965). As such, Organ (1988a) proposed

that a possible input to the equity ratio is OCB and that manipulating this input might be

considered an action by the employee to restore equity if injustice is perceived.

The second reason is that the relationship that exists between the employee and the

organization can be considered as one of social exchange. Therefore, if employees feel that their

relationship with their organization is one of social exchange, then the will most probably

demonstrate acts of citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988b).

To summarize things up, most of the studies done by researchers such as Konovsky and

Folger (1991), Farh, Podsakoff, and Organ (1988a, 1988b, 1990) conclude that there exists a

strong relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizational citizenship Behavior.

2. Work Performance

Most of the research done earlier in respect of Work Performance and Organizational

Citizenship Behavior highlighted the impact of one type of justice which is procedural justice on

the attitudes exhibited in the work place and the quality of the work performed (Lind & Tyler,

1988). More specifically, an assumption was made that procedural justice is more influential

when group harmony is required, whereas distributive justice is influential when productivity

11

and efficiency are required (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Consequently, by influencing employee

attitudes, procedural justice will eventually impact work performance. The opposite is also true,

which means perceptions of injustice will impact attitudes which in turn will negatively

influence work performance (Brockner &Wiesenfeld, 1996; Greenberg, 1987).

3. Counterproductive Work Behavior and Withdrawal Behavior

Greenberg & Scott (1996) expected that withdrawal behavior in addition to

counterproductive work behavior will both impact the three dimensions of organizational justice.

Counterproductive and withdrawal behaviors are assumed to be a response to perception of

distributive unfairness, where the perceiver manipulates contributions to restore his/ her equity.

They restore equity, by hurting the organization to decrease the level of their output compared to

the input they contribute. Similar finding were also predicted by Greenberg & Scott (1996)

regarding procedural injustice and counterproductive behaviors.

In view of the above, and since the relationship between the employee and the

organization can be considered as one of social exchange, it is safe to say that counterproductive

behaviors and withdrawal behaviors follow the same logic as the one behind Organizational

Citizenship Behavior (Organ & Moorman, 1993). In other words, if the perceivers believe that

the company is being unjust in the process of allocating resources, then they will exhibit harmful

approaches toward their own company. These harmful approached and feelings will most

probably de-motivate employees and push them to act against the company’s interest (Skarlicki

& Folger, 1997).

Alexander & Ruderman (1987) summarized the relation between perceived justice and

counterproductive behavior in their study, as a relationship between distributive justice and

12

certain behaviors that the perceiver does himself/herself; whereas the relationship with

procedural justice is concerned with behaviors that are socially oriented; and the relationship

with interactional injustice is one that creates negative behaviors directed towards the immediate

supervisor of the employee.

4. Attitudinal and Affective Reactions toward Specific Outcomes, the Organization, and the Supervisor

The above reactions that are usually made by the employees and directed to the company

were studied mostly in procedural justice models. Lind and Tyler (1988), for instance, assumed a

powerful affirmative effect of procedural justice on reducing organizational conflict. Moreover,

they discovered a powerful relationship between attitudes and procedural justice as opposed to

distributive justice (Alexander &Ruderman, 1987). The relationship between attitudes and

procedural justice was defined as one of cognitive nature while the relationship between attitudes

and distributive justice was defined as one of cognitive and affective in nature at the same time

(Austin & Walster, 1974).

Lastly, interactional justice was assumed to have an impact on the managers and their

decisions (Bies & Shapiro, 1987). Thus, a trust issue that might arise between an employee and

his/her supervisor is probably due to perceptions of interactional injustice and not distributive or

procedural injustice. Conversely, trust issues between the employee and the management is

probably due to perception of procedural injustice perceptions (Cropanzano & Prehar, 1999).

5. Organizational Commitment

Emotional attachment or affective commitment to the company is a companywide

product; accordingly it should be directly related to procedural justice and not interactional or

13

distributive justice that are related to the supervisor and the outcome itself respectively

(Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). In conformity with the above assumptions, Cohen-Charash &

Spector (2001) made similar predictions in that affective commitment is very much connected to

procedural justice and not so much connected to interactional justice or to distributive justice.

Conversely, continuance commitment, which is another type of attachment to the organization,

in which employees are simply unable to leave their company, is predicted to have no relation to

the three dimensions of justice (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991).

6. Organizational Trust

Trust in the organization is predicted to be related to perceptions of organizational

procedural justice and not organizational distributive justice, (Folger & Konovsky, 1989;

Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991), the reason behind this relationship is that trust usually depends

on actions and if the company acts in a fair and just manner then it is considered to be reliable

and trustworthy. This prediction, however, is not supported by Cohen-Charash & Spector (2001),

who found that organizational trust can be equally expected by all three dimensions of

organizational justice. They went further in predicting that the trust in one’s immediate superior

is better predicted by organizational procedural justice and not organizational distributive justice.

Nevertheless, no relationship was found regarding interactional justice and trust in one’s

immediate superior.

7. Turnover Intentions

This outcome perceived justice is expected to be connected to two types of organizational

justice, distributive and procedural justice. That is if the organization’s distributions and

14

procedures are perceived as just, incentive to leave the company diminishes drastically

(Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). Equally, others argue that turnover will be only predicted by

procedural justice, because procedural justice is the only dimension of organizational justice that

is directly connected to decision making and not connected to the outcome itself (Dailey & Kirk,

1992). Thus, if the organizational procedures are just, particular negative outcomes would not

push employees to quit their job. In addition to that all, procedural justice is predicted to be a

good predictor of turnover where the same cannot be said regarding interactional justice

(Masterson, 2000).

D. Distributive and Procedural Justice as predictors of Job Satisfaction

In their study, McFarlin & Sweeney (1992) found out that an important predictor of

personal outcomes including job and pay satisfaction would be distributive justice. Whereas, a

better predictor of organizational outcomes including organizational commitment would be

procedural justice. Nevertheless, an interaction between the two justices will also predict

organizational outcomes.

In fact, studies done earlier suggested that the nature of the outcome itself is crucial in

determining the predictive roles of procedural and distributive justice (Konovsky, 1987).

Alexander and Ruderman (1987), for instance, discovered that procedural justice is a significant

predictor of job satisfaction and perceived conflict. Same is not true in respect of distributive

justice as a predictor of job satisfaction and perceived conflict. Konovsky and colleagues (1987)

on the contrary discovered that procedural justice predicted organizational commitment and did

not predict pay satisfaction.

15

In a nutshell, the above findings propose that procedural justice is a significant predictor

of organizational outcomes like organizational commitment. Whereas, distributive justice is a

significant predictor of personal outcomes like pay satisfaction.

E. The Influence of Cognitive and Affective Based Job Satisfaction Measures on the Relationship Between Satisfaction and OCB

Organ's outlook that justice perceptions are connected to Organizational Citizenship

Behavior stemmed from the empirically supported relationship between OCB and job

satisfaction (Organ, 1988a, 1988b, 1990) . Organ (1988b) went further in proposing a

relationship between OCB and the cognitive constituent of job satisfaction which is previously

predicted to the influence perceptions of justice. In addition to that all, Organ (1988b) predicted

that if simultaneously measured, job satisfaction and perceptions of justice will together explain

the more variance in Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Accordingly, he deduced that if

organization justice and job satisfaction are measured simultaneously, then organizational justice

will be the one related to Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

F. Hypotheses

The aim of this paper was to test if a relation between perceptions of all three dimensions

of organizational justice (i.e. distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice) and

dimensions of OCB. In particular, relationships between dimensions of Organizational Justice

and Organizational Citizenship Behavior were examined. Moreover, since Organ (1988a)

suggested that there is a relation between job satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior, this might imply a relation between Organizational Justice and Organizational

16

Citizenship Behavior. Additionally, a relationship between job satisfaction and Organizational

Citizenship Behavior was also examined. The relative hypotheses were as follows:

H1: Job Satisfaction will positively influence dimensions of OCB.

H2: Perceptions of organizational justice will positively influence the dimensions of OCB.

H3: Perceptions of organizational justice will positively influence job satisfaction.

An additional interesting aspect that was tested in this study was the relationship between

two types of organizational justice that are distributive justice and procedural justice. Previous

relationship has been found by researchers such as Greenberg (1987), but the causal relationship

was not examined closely between the two.

Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was as follows:

H4: Perceptions of procedural justice will positively influence perceptions of distributive

justice.

17

CHAPTER III

METHODOLGY

A. Participants and Settings

The sample for this research was collected from the employees of four medium-sized

companies in Lebanon. Two of them were insurance companies, one shipping company & one

university. Data were collected in all companies by handing participants the surveys and

collecting them later at an agreed date.

The global employee response rate from the all companies was around 88%. In Total, 133

employees from all four companies completed the survey.

B. Measures

1. Organizational Justice

The scale used for Organizational Justice was founded on the basis of the scale used by

Moorman (1991) and which reported reliabilities of more than 0.90 on all three dimensions. The

dimensions were:

Distributive Justice, which was measured using five items assessing the fairness of

different work outcomes, including pay level, work schedule, work load and job responsibilities.

Procedural Justice, which was measured using six items assessing the degree to

18

which decisions made by management included procedures that guaranteed the collection

gathering of reliable data and information.

Interactional Justice, which was measured using five items assessing the degree to

which employees’ wants were taken into consideration the sufficient and satisfying explanations

were given to employees prior to decision taking.

2. Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction was evaluated with a six item scale that assessed the satisfaction of work

relations with others, with the level of pay, with promotion opportunities and with the current job

situation.

3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Since there was huge controversy in respect of behaviors that may be considered organizational

citizenship behaviors, a list of OCBs was generated by Kwantes, Karam, Kuo & Towson (2008) from

items found in past work by Moorman and Blakely (1995), Morrison (1994), and Podsakoff, Mackenzie,

Moorman, and Fetter (1990). The list was divided into five dimensions. The five dimensions were as

follows:

Volunteerism: which was measured using 11 items assessing the degree to which

employees are willing to volunteer to carry out task activities that are not formally part of one’s own

job

19

Boosterism: which was measured using 2 items assessing the degree to which employees

promote the organizational image to outsiders

Initiative: which was measured using 7 items assessing the degree to which employees

communicate to others on how to improve individual and group performance

Conscientiousness: which was measured using 6 items assessing the degree to which

employees will contribute in terms of attendance, punctuality, housekeeping, conserving resources, and

related matters of internal maintenance.

Sportsmanship: which was not included in the scale since it is believed that all employees

will answer positively on the subject

C. Data Analyses and Results

1. Frequencies

To better understand the profile of the sample understudy, frequency analysis was

performed for all the participants based on demographic variables such as, age, education,

gender, marital status, total work experience, tenure, sector, job status, lived abroad and

nationality. A depiction of the sample profile is illustrated in Table 1.

2. Factor Analysis

Factor analysis was conducted to determine the fit of the four factors of OCB, Job

Satisfaction and the three Organization Justice dimensions.

20

The four factors of OCB are: Volunteerism, Boosterism, Initiative & Conscientiousness

The three dimensions Organizational Justice are: Procedural, Distributive and

Interactional

Factor analysis was conducted on all items of OCB which led to the emergence of eight

factors that explained 66% of the variance. After a careful conceptual analysis, only three

relevant factors emerged, which were Volunteerism, Boosterism and Initiative. This suggests that

each of the emerged factors is unidimensional. Below you can find sample items of the scale

used for each factor:

Volunteerism: Do you arrive early to prepare for the day?

Boosterism: Do you defend the organization when outsiders criticize it?

Initiative: Do you encourage others to try new and more effective ways of doing their job?

Moreover, Factor analysis was conducted on all items of Organizational Justice which led to the

emergence of five factors that explained 65% of the variance. After a careful conceptual

analysis, three factors emerged. This also suggests that each of the emerged factors is

unidimensional. The factors that emerged were Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice and

Interactional Justice. Below you can find sample items of the scale used for each factor:

Procedural Justice: Do you think all job decisions are applied consistently across all affected

employees?

Distributive Justice: Do you think your level of pay is fair?

Interactional Justice: When decisions are made about your job, does management treat you with

respect and dignity?

21

Finally, factor analysis was also conducted on Job Satisfaction and after a careful conceptual

analysis; two factors emerged that explained 63% of the variance. The two factors can be

categorized as Relationship Satisfaction, and Pay & Promotion Satisfaction. Below you can find

sample items of the scale used for each factor:

Relationship Satisfaction: How satisfied are you with your relations with others in the

organization with whom you work [your co-workers or peers]?

Other Satisfaction: How satisfied are you with opportunities which exist in this

organization for advancement [promotion]?

3. Reliability

Reliability Tests were conducted on all items of Organizational Justice and Organizational

Citizenship Behavior to measure the internal consistency of these items and how closely related

were these items as a group. The Cronbach’s alpha for each item was calculated to investigate

whether the items measure an underlying construct. The Cronbach's alpha of the three organizational

justice scales were as follows:

Cronbach's alpha for Procedural Justice was 0.75

Cronbach's alpha for Distributive Justice was 0.70

Cronbach's alpha for Interactional Justice was 0.73

22

All three were equal or greater than the 0.70 minimum established by Nunnally (1978).

Hence the alpha coefficients for the three items suggest that the items have relatively acceptable

internal consistency.

On the other hand, The Cronbach's alpha of the three organizational citizenship behavior

scales were as follows:

Cronbach's alpha for Volunteerism was 0.70

Cronbach's alpha for Boosterism was 0.59

Cronbach's alpha for Initiative was 0.56

The Cronbach’s alpha of boosterism and initiative were both below 0.70 which are

unacceptable as per social science research standards. However, the Cronbach’s alpha for

volunteerism was 0.70 which is equal to the 0.70 minimum established by Nunnally (1978).

Hence the alpha coefficient of volunteerism is considered as having an acceptable internal

consistency and was therefore the only dimension of OCB to be used in the regression analysis

later to evaluate our proposed model (Figure 1).

4. T-Test

To uncover gender differences, an independent samples T-test was conducted to compare

the means of a normally distributed interval dependent variable for males and females. That is,

we tested whether the mean for perceptions of procedural justice, distributive justice and

interactional justice was the same for males and females. Similarly, we tested whether the mean

of volunteerism, boosterism and initiative and the mean of relationship satisfaction, pay&

promotion satisfaction and general satisfaction were the same for males and females.

23

The t test revealed no statistically reliable difference between females and males in respect of all

factors except for pay & promotion satisfaction, where results indicated that there is a statistically

significant difference between the mean of pay & promotion satisfaction for males and females ). In other

words, males have a statistically significantly higher mean of pay & promotion satisfaction than females,

which means that females are less satisfied than males regarding pay and promotion opportunities.

5. Regression Analysis

Regression analysis was performed to measure the effect of the three dimensions of

organizational justice on OCB dimensions. Moreover, regression analysis was performed to

measure the effect of the three dimensions of organizational justice on the three types of job

satisfaction. Finally, regression analysis was performed to measure the effect of the three types

of job satisfaction on all dimensions of OCB.

Individual relationships between the variables were tested to determine the significance

of the relationships labeled from 1 to 5 as shown in Figure 1 below.

Relationship 1 was evaluated to test Hypothesis 1: Job Satisfaction will positively

influence dimensions of OCB. The regression analysis revealed that the model for volunteerism

was significant with R-squared of 29.4% for relationship satisfaction only with a beta of 0.220

and significant at the p < 0.05 level.

Relationships 2 and 3 were evaluated to test Hypothesis 2: Perceptions of organizational

justice will positively influence OCB. The regression analysis revealed that the model for

volunteerism was significant with R-squared of 29.4% and a beta of 0.259 for procedural justice

and a beta of 0.283 for interactional justice. Both procedural justice and interactional justice were

24

significant at the p < 0.05 level. Whereas the beta for distributive justice was equal to -0.150;

which was insignificant with p > 0.1.

Relationship 4 was evaluated to test Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of organizational justice

will influence job satisfaction. Regression analysis revealed that the model for relationship

satisfaction was significant with R-squared of 37% and a beta of 0.451 for distributive justice;

which was significant at the level p<0.001 whereas the beta for procedural justice and

interactional justice were 0.115 and 0.146 respectively which were insignificant with p>0.1

Finally, Relationship 5 was evaluated to test Hypothesis 4: Perceptions of procedural

justice will influence perceptions of distributive justice. A correlation analysis revealed a

correlation of 0.459 between procedural and distributive justice which was significant at the p <

0.01 level.

25

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

As mentioned before, the aim of this research was to test the relation between perceptions

of Organization Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Through regression analysis,

support was found for the four hypotheses related to influence of perceptions of organizational

justice on OCB. Below is a discussion of the findings of this research.

Figure 1: Proposed Model

Job

Satisfaction

Distributive

Justice 4

1

5

2

OCB

Procedural

Justice

3

Interactional

Justice

26

A. Job Satisfaction & OCB

Hypothesis 1 was included in this study to examine if job satisfaction positively and

directly influences Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Most of the study done on OCB

included job satisfaction as a cause. In our study, we found a direct positive influence of

relationship satisfaction which is one dimension of job satisfaction and volunteerism which is

also one dimension of OCB. Hence we can say that Hypothesis 1 was supported but should more

clearly read as: Relationship Satisfaction will positively influence volunteerism.

B. Organizational Justice & OCB

Hypothesis 2 was included in this study to examine whether perceptions of fairness will

positively influence the dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.

The results of this study were consistent with Organ’s above viewpoint; however, a closer

look on the link between fairness perceptions and OCB revealed that the type of justice

perception is as significant in predicting the occurrence of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.

Analyses of the individual relations between the three dimensions of fairness and OCB resulted

in different effects of each dimension of justice. Our results, revealed a causal relationship

between perceptions of procedural and interactional justice and volunteerism (one dimension of

OCB). Thus, we can say that Hypothesis 2 was supported but should more clearly read as:

Perceptions of procedural and interactional justice will positively influence volunteerism.

27

C. Organizational Justice & Job Satisfaction

Hypothesis 3 was included in this study to examine whether perceptions of fairness will

positively influence job satisfaction. Previous research showed a relatively high relation between

all three justice types and general job satisfaction. Other predicted that general satisfaction a

more significantly connected to procedural justice more then to distributive justice. Our results

concerning job satisfaction showed that relationship satisfaction is influenced by distributive

justice alone. Thus, we can say that Hypothesis 3 was supported but should more clearly read as:

Perceptions of distributive justice will positively influence relationship satisfaction.

D. Procedural Justice & Distributive Justice

Hypothesis 4 was included in this study to examine whether perceptions of procedural

justice will positively influence perceptions of distributive justice.

The results of our study showed a strong correlation between procedural and distributive

justice. This can be explained by the fact that when employees perceive procedural fairness that

is fairness in the organizational system, institution, and authorities then the outcomes will also be

perceived as fair. Thus, we can say that Hypothesis 4 was also supported.

28

Figure 2: Supported Model

Distributive

Justice

Procedural

Justice

Interactional

Justice

OCB:

Volunteerism

Relationship

Satisfaction

1

2

3

4

5

29

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

A. Limitations

A basic limitation of this research is its exclusive dependence on cross-sectional and self-

report data. This dependency does not allow us to make strong causal statements about our

findings. The use of a longitudinal data is predicted to allow for better causal statements.

A second limitation would be the sample under study, though data was collected from

four different companies, it is still unique enough to raise concerns over generalizing its

outcome. Moreover, the companies under study did not seem to face lack of justice problems.

Maybe the results would be different if the organization faced such problems.

Finally, another limitation would be that employees were the ones responding to

questions regarding their citizenship behavior and a better and more accurate method would be

getting information on the citizenship behavior from the managers and not the employees.

B. Managerial Implications

The most important implication in this research is the fact that the direct superior of the

employee is able to directly affect employees' OCBs. The perception of justice that stemmed

30

from interactional justice depended on the ability of the direct superior of the employee to

properly use and implement procedures which were originally built to endorse justice. It also

depended on the manner in which the superior implemented the procedures. In view of the

above, if directors and supervisors wish to enhance the level of citizenship in their employees,

they must try and enhance the justice of their treatment and communication.

An end result of the above implication is that perceptions interactional justice is easier to

manage than the other forms of justice perceptions. For instance, perceptions of distributional

justice of outcomes are susceptible to forces beyond the supervisor’s power. Likewise, the

availability of procedures that are considered as fair by the employees depends highly on the

company’s policy and is not in the hands of the supervisor. By comparison, the interactional

justice depends largely on the supervisor’s sensitivity and kindness when treating and

communicating to their subordinates..

C. Future Research

A suggested direction for future research would be to figure out if personal and

organizational outcomes other than those examined here and in previous research will yield

similar predictive patterns for distributive and procedural justice. More research is also needed to

explain why is there a different effect of distributive and procedural justice on personal and

organizational outcomes. Dealing with the above matter may request a better understanding of

how personal and organizational outcomes differ.

31

APPENDIX

I. TABLE 1 – DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRIBUTES OF THE STUDY SAMPLE

Frequency Percent

Age

20-35 years 100 75.236-50 years 25 18.851-65 years 7 5.3More than 65 years 1 .8

Total 133 100.0

Education

Less than Bacc II 6 4.5Bacc II or HS 15 11.3BA 58 43.6Graduate 40 30.1Technical 10 7.5No Response 4 3.0

Total 133 100.0

Gender

Male 61 45.9Female 72 54.1

Total 133 100.0

Marital Status

Single 92 69.2Married 40 30.1Divorced 1 .8

Total 133 100.0

Total Work Experience

Less than 1 year 6 4.51-5 years 61 45.96-10 years 31 23.311-15 years 17 12.816 years or more 17 12.8No Response 1 .8

Total 133 100.0

32

Frequency Percent

Tenure

Less than 1 year 19 14.31-5 years 71 53.46-10 years 19 14.311-15 years 11 8.316 years or more 12 9.0No Reponse 1 .8

Total 133 100.0

Sector

General Services 114 85.7Trade 1 .8Non-Profit 2 1.5Public Sector 4 3.0Education 12 9.0

Total 133 100.0

Job Status

Top Management 2 1.5Middle Management 10 7.5Supervisory Management 27 20.3Non-Managerial 94 70.7

Total 133 100.0

Live Abroad

No 121 91.0Yes 12 9.0

Total 133 100.0

33

II. TABLE 2 – FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR OCB

Communalities

Initial Extraction Q11 1.000 .670

Q12 1.000 .685

Q13 1.000 .667

Q14 1.000 .601

Q15 1.000 .736

Q17 1.000 .507

Q20 1.000 .713

Q21 1.000 .552

Q22 1.000 .649

Q23 1.000 .806

Q25 1.000 .700

Q27 1.000 .721

Q30 1.000 .560

Q31 1.000 .743

Q32 1.000 .681

Q33 1.000 .686

Q36 1.000 .541

Q37 1.000 .629

Q38 1.000 .763

Q42 1.000 .623

Q43 1.000 .593

Q44 1.000 .669

Q46 1.000 .667

Q48 1.000 .735

Q51 1.000 .726

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

34

Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared

Loadings

Total % of

Variance Cumulative % Total % of

Variance Cumulative

% Total % of

Variance Cumulative

% 1 6.745 26.982 26.982 6.745 26.982 26.982 2.761 11.045 11.045

2 1.963 7.851 34.832 1.963 7.851 34.832 2.730 10.920 21.966

3 1.692 6.768 41.601 1.692 6.768 41.601 2.227 8.908 30.874

4 1.569 6.277 47.878 1.569 6.277 47.878 1.996 7.985 38.858

5 1.339 5.355 53.233 1.339 5.355 53.233 1.786 7.143 46.002

6 1.184 4.737 57.971 1.184 4.737 57.971 1.750 6.998 53.000

7 1.103 4.413 62.384 1.103 4.413 62.384 1.737 6.949 59.949

8 1.026 4.106 66.490 1.026 4.106 66.490 1.635 6.541 66.490

9 .997 3.989 70.479 10 .913 3.653 74.131 11 .802 3.207 77.338 12 .707 2.828 80.166 13 .628 2.511 82.677 14 .589 2.355 85.032 15 .549 2.195 87.227 16 .426 1.703 88.930 17 .399 1.598 90.528 18 .380 1.521 92.048 19 .350 1.401 93.449 20 .330 1.320 94.769 21 .312 1.246 96.015 22 .292 1.166 97.182 23 .283 1.134 98.315 24 .234 .936 99.251 25 .187 .749 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

35

Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q13 .670

Q31 .666

Q12 .652

Q15 .623 .488

Q48 .621 .376

Q21 .621

Q43 .608

Q27 .598 -.399

Q51 .598 .497

Q37 .566 -.362

Q17 .550 -.371

Q44 .525 -.469

Q32 .502 -.411 .357

Q20 .485 -.460 .354

Q30 .480

Q36 .468 .370

Q38 .464 -.449 .399

Q25 .450 .420 .404

Q33 .449 .385 .360

Q22 .445

Q46 .702

Q11 .476 .549

Q23 .597 .403 -.384

Q42 .423 -.536

Q14 .533

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 8 components extracted.

36

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q42 .732

Q13 .666

Q17 .564

Q43 .695

Q44 .678

Q30 .656

Q21 .580

Q36 .539

Q27 .778

Q51 .669

Q31 .573

Q38 .831

Q48 .710

Q23 .870

Q15 .608

Q46 -.747

Q20 .639

Q11 -.458

Q33 .762

Q37 .485

Q32 .463

Q22 -.441

Q14 .692

Q12 .643

Q25 .595

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 15 iterations.

37

Component Transformation Matrix

Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 .496 .493 .439 .347 .218 .062 .262 .280

2 .117 -.245 .135 .339 .019 -.822 -.333 .072

3 .152 -.451 .066 -.423 .684 -.098 .297 .157

4 -.720 .403 .129 -.043 .382 -.103 -.195 .326

5 -.218 -.059 .326 -.279 -.542 -.283 .549 .299

6 .022 -.442 .329 .079 -.158 .436 -.421 .544

7 -.197 -.231 -.498 .606 .065 .068 .422 .326

8 .334 .282 -.553 -.365 -.124 -.155 -.192 .542


38

III. TABLE 3 – FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

Communalities

Initial Extraction Q16 1.000 .741

Q26 1.000 .603

Q35 1.000 .671

Q40 1.000 .740

Q50 1.000 .626

Q18 1.000 .560

Q24 1.000 .625

Q28 1.000 .627

Q34 1.000 .561

Q41 1.000 .679

Q47 1.000 .708

Q19 1.000 .645

A29 1.000 .570

Q39 1.000 .674

Q45 1.000 .783

Q52 1.000 .641


39


Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative

% Total% of

VarianceCumulative

% Total % of

Variance Cumulative

% 1 5.537 34.608 34.608 5.537 34.608 34.608 3.402 21.264 21.264

2 1.435 8.968 43.575 1.435 8.968 43.575 2.261 14.131 35.395

3 1.248 7.800 51.375 1.248 7.800 51.375 2.069 12.934 48.329

4 1.131 7.069 58.445 1.131 7.069 58.445 1.545 9.657 57.986

5 1.103 6.891 65.336 1.103 6.891 65.336 1.176 7.350 65.336

6 .818 5.115 70.451 7 .789 4.933 75.384 8 .680 4.248 79.631 9 .574 3.587 83.218 10 .512 3.202 86.420 11 .475 2.968 89.388 12 .433 2.708 92.096 13 .381 2.379 94.474 14 .334 2.087 96.562 15 .297 1.858 98.420 16 .253 1.580 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

40

Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 Q39 .742

Q19 .739

Q52 .718

Q45 .713

Q28 .705

Q34 .672

Q41 .650 -.373

Q50 .583 -.468

A29 .534 .503

Q16 .495 -.398 .391 .371

Q35 .497 -.523

Q26 .449 .528

Q18 .473 .566

Q24 .420 .405 .488

Q40 .504 -.649

Q47 .413 .648


a. 5 components extracted.

41


Component

1 2 3 4 5 Q28 .748

Q52 .691

Q39 .682

Q41 .676

Q34 .624

Q40 .600

Q35 .793

Q50 .711

Q16 .700

Q19 .497

Q26 .734

Q45 .710

A29 .660

Q18 .675

Q24 .665

Q47 .757


a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.

42


Component 1 2 3 4 5 1 .711 .464 .418 .304 .111

2 -.005 -.720 .660 .145 .157

3 -.632 .467 .545 .113 -.271

4 -.137 -.108 -.303 .933 -.086

5 -.277 .191 -.031 .058 .939


43

IV. TABLE 4 – FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR JOB SATISFACTION

Communalities

Initial Extraction Q53 1.000 .680Q54 1.000 .651Q55 1.000 .584Q56 1.000 .527Q57 1.000 .712Q58 1.000 .635



Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared

Loadings

Total % of

Variance Cumulative

% Total % of

Variance Cumulative

% Total % of

Variance Cumulat

ive % 1 2.644 44.074 44.074 2.644 44.074 44.074 2.191 36.509 36.5092 1.145 19.081 63.156 1.145 19.081 63.156 1.599 26.647 63.1563 .773 12.877 76.033 4 .529 8.816 84.849 5 .485 8.085 92.934 6 .424 7.066 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

44

Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 Q58 .778 Q53 .769 Q54 .747 -.305 Q55 .638 -.421 Q56 .516 .511 Q57 .465 .704

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 2 components extracted.


Component

1 2 Q53 .806 Q54 .792 Q55 .764 Q57 .844 Q56 .711

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.


Component 1 2 1 .835 .550 2 -.550 .835


45

V. QUESTTIONAIRE

Confidential Work Questionnaire

This questionnaire is designed to serve as a basis for gathering information about job attributes and work

attitudes. Your participation in this research project is entirely voluntary and your responses will be kept

completely confidential. Please do not write your name or the name of your organization. As soon as you

have completed the questionnaire, please return it in the enclosed self‐addressed envelope or give it to the

assigned person. Under no conditions will the identity of the respondent or the company involved be

disclosed. You responses will be aggregated and combined with hundreds of other responses from different

organizations and only reported in total.

SECTION 1: ABOUT YOURSELF

INSTRUCTIONS: For each question either fill in the blank or circle the number which represents your

answer. Please do not write your name or the name of your organization.

1. Age 1. Less than 20 years 2. 20‐35 years 3. 36‐50 years 4. 51‐65 years 5. More than 65 years

2. Education

1. Less than Baccalaureate or High School diploma

2. Baccalaureate or High School diploma

3. Bachelor’s degree 4. Graduate Studies 5. Technical Studies

3. Gender

1. Male 2. Female

4. Marital Status

1. Single 2. Married 3. Divorced 4. Other(Please specify)

_________________

5. Your work experience in total 1. Less than 1 year 2. 1‐5 years 3. 6‐10 years 4. 11‐15 years 5. 16 years or more

6. Your work experience in your current organization 1. Less than 1 year 2. 1‐5 years 3. 6‐10 years 4. 11‐15 years 5. 16 years or more

46

4. Marital Status

5. Single 6. Married 7. Divorced 8. Other(Please specify)

_________________

5. Your work experience in total 6. Less than 1 year 7. 1‐5 years 8. 6‐10 years 9. 11‐15 years 10. 16 years or more

6. Your work experience in your current organization 6. Less than 1 year 7. 1‐5 years 8. 6‐10 years 9. 11‐15 years 10. 16 years or more

7. Sector in which you work 1. General services 2. Manufacturing 3. Trade 4. Non‐Profit 5. Public sector 6. Education 7. Other (Please specify)

_________________

8. Job Status 1. Top Management 2. Middle Management 3. Supervisory Management 4. Non‐managerial Please specify

________________

9. Have you ever lived abroad for more than five years?

Yes No Please specify country

____________________

10. Nationality _______________________

SECTION 2: ABOUT WORK

Using the scale below please circle the best number (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that best describes to what extent you relate at work with each of the following statements:

1 = Small Extent 2 3 4 5 = Large Extent

11. Do you conscientiously follow regulations and procedures? 1 2 3 4 5

12. Do you help to make others more productive? 1 2 3 4 5

13. Do you help others who have been absent? 1 2 3 4 5

14. Do you arrive early to prepare for the day? 1 2 3 4 5

15. Do you defend the organization when outsiders criticize it? 1 2 3 4 5

16. Do you think your work schedule is fair? 1 2 3 4 5

17. Do you return phone calls and respond to other messages and requests for information promptly?

1 2 3 4 5

18. Do you think that the job decisions made by management are made in an unbiased manner?

1 2 3 4 5

19. When decisions are made about your job, does management treat you with kindness and consideration?

1 2 3 4 5

47

20. Do you often motivate others to express their ideas and opinions? 1 2 3 4 5

21. Do you volunteer for things that are not required at work? 1 2 3 4 5

22. Do you work late or through lunch? 1 2 3 4 5

23. Do you defend the organization when employees criticize it? 1 2 3 4 5

24. Do you think all job decisions are applied consistently across all affected employees?

1 2 3 4 5

25. Do you encourage others to try new and more effective ways of doing their job?

1 2 3 4 5

26. Do you think your level of pay is fair? 1 2 3 4 5

27. Do you assist your supervisor with his or her work? 1 2 3 4 5

28. Do you think management makes sure that all employee concerns are heard before job decisions are made?

1 2 3 4 5

29. When decisions are made about your job, does management treat you with respect and dignity?

1 2 3 4 5

30. Do you attend meetings that are not mandatory? 1 2 3 4 5

31. Do you come to work early if needed? 1 2 3 4 5

32. Do you encourage hesitant or quiet co-workers to voice their opinion when they might otherwise not speak up?

1 2 3 4 5

33. Do you help to organize departmental get-togethers? 1 2 3 4 5

34. Do you think management collects accurate and complete information before making job decisions?

1 2 3 4 5

35. Do you consider your work load is fair? 1 2 3 4 5

36. Do you make innovative suggestions to improve your company or department?

1 2 3 4 5

37. Do you always meet or beat deadlines for completing work? 1 2 3 4 5

38. Do you help others who have heavy workloads? 1 2 3 4 5

39. When decisions are made about your job, is management sensitive to your personal needs?

1 2 3 4 5

40. Do you think the rewards you receive are fair? 1 2 3 4 5

41. Do you think management clarifies decisions and provides additional information when requested by employees?

1 2 3 4 5

42. Do you inform others of job related problems they do not know? 1 2 3 4 5

43. Do you volunteer without being asked? 1 2 3 4 5

48

44. Do you attend training/information sessions that are not mandatory? 1 2 3 4 5

45. When decisions are made about your job, does management deal with you in a truthful manner?

1 2 3 4 5

46. Do you spend time in conversation unrelated to work? 1 2 3 4 5

47. Do you challenge or appeal job decisions made by the management?

1 2 3 4 5

48. Do you try to make the organization the best it can be? 1 2 3 4 5

49. Do you cover for late/absent people? 1 2 3 4 5

50. Do you think your job responsibilities are fair? 1 2 3 4 5

51. Do you perform duties with extra special care? 1 2 3 4 5

52. When decisions are made about your job, does management show concern for your rights as an employee?

1 2 3 4 5

SECTION 3: HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU? In the section below you will find questions relating to your job satisfaction. Please answer using the following scale:

1 = Strongly not Satisfied

2 = Not satisfied 3 = Neutral 4 = Satisfied 5 = Strongly Satisfied

53. How satisfied are you with the nature of the work you perform?

1 2 3

4 5

54. How satisfied are you with the person who supervises you [your organizational superior]?

1 2 3

4 5

55. How satisfied are you with your relations with others in the organization with whom you work [your co-workers or peers]?

1 2 3

4 5

56. How satisfied are you with the pay you receive for your job?

1 2 3

4 5

57. How satisfied are you with opportunities which exist in this organization for advancement [promotion]?

1 2 3

4 5

58. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your current job situation?

1 2 3

4 5

49

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in

organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 7,177-198. Bies, R. J. (1987). Beyond “voice”: The influence of decision-maker justification and sincerity

on procedural fairness judgments. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17, 3–14.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R.

J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Cohen-Charash, Y. & Spector, P. E. (2001). The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-

Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. (1991). Procedural justice and worker motivation. In R. Steers &

L. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (pp. 131–143). New York: McGraw–Hill. Cropanzano, R., & Prehar, C. A. (1999, April). Using social exchange theory to distinguish

procedural from interactional justice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.

Dean B. McFarlin and Paul D Sweeney (1992). Distributive and Procedural Justice As Predictors

Of Job Satisfaction. Academy of Management. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice of reactions

to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130. Fryxell, G. E., & Gordon, M. E. (1989). Workplace justice and job satisfaction as predictors of

satisfaction with union and management. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 851-866. Gordon, M. E., & Fryxell, G. E. (1989). Voluntariness of association as a moderator of the

importance of procedural and distributive justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 993-1009.

Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means

justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61. Konovsky,M.A., Folger,R. ,& Cropanzano, R. (1987). Relative effects of procedural and

distributive justice on employee attitudes. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17, 15–24.

50

Konovsky, M. A., & Freeman, A. B. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on

business organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 489–511. Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of

Management Journal, 37, 656–669. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study

of fairness in social relationships. In K. S. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New \brk: Plenum Press.

Leventhal, G. S., & Lane, D. W. (1970). Sex, age, and equity behavior. Journal of Personality &

Social Psychology, 15, 312–316. Levy, P.E.,&Williams, J. R. (1998). The role of perceived system knowledge in predicting

appraisal reactions, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 53–65.

Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice:

Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 952–959.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York:

Plenum Press. Moorman, Robert H. J. (1993). The Influence Of Cognitive And Affective Based Job

Satisfaction Measures On The Relationship Between Satisfaction And Organizational Citizenship Behavior. New York: Human Relations.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. O'Reilly, C., &

Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.

Martin, C. L., & Bennett, N. (1996). The role of justice judgments in explaining the relationship

between job satisfaction and organization commitment. Group and Organization Management, 21, 84–104.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis-Mcclear, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, S. M. (2000). Integrating

justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.

Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., Kemery, E. R., & Wesolowski, M. A. (1998a). Relationships

between bases of power and work reactions: The mediational role of procedural justice. Journal of Management, 24, 533–552.

51

Sweeney, P. D., McFarlin, D. B., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Locus of control as a moderator of the

relationship between perceived influence and procedural justice. Human Relations, 44, 333–342.

Organ, D. W (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M.

Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43-72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum. Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of

procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology in business settings (pp. 77-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Weiss, H. M., Suckow,K.,&Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete

emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 786–794.

pj-1615

Documents

single married divorced

noura farouk tabbara

careful conceptual analysis

principal component analysis

rotated component matrixa

acceptable internal consistency

organizational citizenship behavior

chapter ii starts