IMPACT OF INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE ON ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR, TURNOVER AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT WITH MODERATING ROLE OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT

Hina Khan, Imam Abdurrehman bin Faisal University, Saudi Arabia.

Email: hkhan@iau.edu.pk

Muhammad Zeb Khan, Sarhad University of Science & IT, Peshawar.

Email: zebkhan.ba@suit.edu.pk

Zia Ullah, University of Central Punajab, Lahore.

Email: dr.ziaullah@ucp.edu.pk

Abstract. This paper aims at investigating the causal as well as correlational relationship between interpersonal justice (independent variable) and organizational citizenship behavior, turnover and organizational commitment (criterion variables). It also examines the moderating role of perceived organizational support. To do this data was collected from a large public healthcare organization having 3000 employees. 180 close ended questionnaires were administered to randomly selected employees and 103 questionnaire perfectly filled in from all respects were selected for analysis. Apart from descriptive statistics, correlational and regression analysis were made using SPSS. Data substantiated the existence of significant positive relationship of interpersonal justice with perceived organizational support, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover. However, its relationship with organizational commitment appeared insignificant. The results of this study are quite consistent with the literature.

Keywords: Interpersonal justice, perceived organizational support organiza-tional citizenship behavior, turnover, organizational commitment.

Introduction

Gaining competitive advantage through Human Resource Practices has become an important focus of research in many organizations. Now, considering the importance of HR, organizations focus on competing on the basis of an improvement and investment in Human Resource sector (Collis & Montgomery.1995; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Wernerfelt, 1984).

Organizational justices are important focal point of the study of management research. Fair and impartial cooperative behavior, reduce conflict, and it reduces transaction costs at work (Rousseau, et al. 1998). It has been showed that justice in the organization, one of the key predictors of certain organizational effects such as organizational citizenship behavior (Konovsky and Pugh, 1994) and organizational commitment (Cook and Wall, 1980.

The theory of organizational justice expounds individuals perceptions of fairness in the work setting (Colquitt, et al. 2005). The theme of justice became one of the most popular and most sought after in organization studies. In the field of management, the terms "justice" and "equity" are often used interchangeably, as when it comes to "organizational justice" and "equity organizational" perceptions.

So in this paper we are testing such variables which increased employee morale, give them sense of being valued, reduce their turnover. Here we suggest that organizations can achieve all this if there is justice in the interpersonal treatment of employees with supervisor in the organizations. Our purpose is to test an explanation for the relationship between interpersonal justice perceptions and organizational favorable outcomes (OCB, organizational commitment and turnover) by examining what may occur within the social exchange process to promote perceived organization support. Specifically, we examined a mediating role played by perceived organizational support (POS) in linking perceptions of justice and OCB commitment and turnover.

Literature Review

Organizational justice

Organizational justice, first proposed by Greenberg in 1987, refers to a perception of employees with respect to their organization, attitudes, the decisions and actions and how these influence the employees own attitudes and behaviors in the workplace. The perception of fairness and their impact on behavior in organizations (Beugre`, 1998) is considered to be justice in the organization. Organizational justice scholars have rarely accounted for the role of personal values in shaping employees behavioral reactions to injustice (Fischer & Smith, 2006). This is an important oversight as it is well documented that values play a central role in shaping human behavior (Rokeach, 1973). The purpose of the current study is to help integrate values into the organizational justice literature. We argue that accounting for the influence of personal values on behavior can lead to clearer understanding of justice-workplace favorable outcomes.

Many theories explain the phenomenon of perceived interpersonal injustice which lead to workplace deviance. For example, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) suggest that employees pay back the treatment they receive from others in different ways. According to the social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) people model their behavior on others behaviors they observe in their surroundings. Hence, employees who perceive that they have been treated unfairly reciprocate and the trend continues. Four types of human needs, according to Cropanzano, et al. (2001) are fulfilled when employees think that their organization is fair. They include: the need for meaning, the need for belonging, the need for a control, and the need for positive himself.

Perceived Organizational Support (POS)

Perceived organization support may be defined as the degree to which employees think that top management will recognize their abilities and reward them according to their work. Cooperative organization always supports its workers who possess strong political skills (Malatesta, & Tetrick, 1996). According to Maslows hierarchy theory the employee feels supportive if his basic needs will be fulfilled or satisfied as for money, self-esteem, recognition and also by rewarding him for his achievement and devotion towards organizational .POS is the extent of satisfaction in which employees realize that their organization values their services and cares for their well-being (Eisenbergeret, et al.,1986).

Generally it gives an impression that if an organization provides enough resources, guidance and support to the employees with strong political skills; it would help in organization success and in achieving its goals and objectives. According to Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo and Lynch (1998) "workers peruse discretionary restricted actions of discretion to have done", or else the employees understand that they are given support by the organization, so they then search for way to payback this favoring conduct, which makes workers more loyal and hardworking. Perceived organizational support is directly linked to objective and evaluative measures of standard job performance (Eisenberger, et al.,1986).

According to the literature claims and linkages between fair treatment in organization may affect the employees perception that employees well-being is really care by the organization. So we can predict our first hypothesis that form above discussion.

H1: Interpersonal justice positively impacts perceived organizational support.

POS and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

One of the objectives of practicing managers and researchers is to look for ways that ensures organizational effectiveness. Begin Match to source 11 in source list: Benjamin Osayawe Ehigie. The agreeableness of workers to perform beyond their job roles is termedEnd Match as OCB (Lockhart & Hoobler, 2001). Organization citizenship behavior End MatchBegin Match to source 7 in source list: Chun Hui. is described as an individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization Begin Match to source 7 in source list: Chun Hui. (Organ, 1988)End Match. Some Begin Match to source 7 in source list: Chun Hui. researchers have stated that OCB is different in differentEnd Match cultures of organizations Begin Match to source 7 in source list: Chun Hui. (Chen,End Match Tsui, & Farh 2002Begin Match to source 7 in source list: Chun Hui. and Hui, Law & Chen, 1999).

There is some research that has focused on the relationships between pos and OCB. For instance Wayne, Shore & Liden (1997) have found a statistically strong relationship between POS and OCB. The study by Wayne, shore, Bommer and Tetrick (2002) concluded that POS was related to the time of the altruism and the respect for OCB dimensions. Wayne, et al. (2002) suggested that organizational justice was linked to POS.

H2: POS positively impacts OCB.

Pos and Turnover Intentions

On the basis of social exchange theory, it is expected to have high POS and an individual possess low turnover intentions (Wyne, et al., 1997). Similarly it is argued by Eisenberger (1990) that the employees who get high support from their organization, they strongly feel as an obligation to pay back to their respective organization (Shore & Wayne, 1993). POS affect an employees turnover intentions. The existence of negative relationship between POS and turnover intentions was also marked by some other studies (Wayne, et al., 1997; Eisenberger, et al., 2001); and the desire to remain and be a part of the organization for longer time has positive relationship with POS (Rhoades &Eisenberger, 2002). The high level of POS induces feelings and emotions of positive regard, more concerning, loyalty, and good relationship of employees with its employer and as a result of these less absenteeism and less turnover intentions.

Researchers found the level of POS in an organization significantly affecting the level of turnover. POS greatly affects employees behavior such as innovativeness and creativity and to have a sense of responsibility regarding their job (Eisenberger, et al, 1986). Moreover, workers with greater POS show greater performance and a sense to remain with the organization meaningless turnover intentions (Mathieu, et al., 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

H3: POS negatively impacts turnover.

POS and Organization Commitment

The word commitment is often used by every one of us in everyday life which means the sense of being bound emotionally or intellectually to some course of action (American heritage dictionary.1979); this relates relation with organization its and individual. Research proved positive relation between perceived organization support and organization commitment (Mayer& Allen, 1997; Mottaz, 1998). The way when organization gives a sense of belonging and importance to its employees, it generate commitment bond between employees and it raise employees expectancy from the origination they tend to be more committed in order to get appraise. As like DeCotiis & Summers (1987) reported when employees are treated with appraising word and acts and their contribution is considered they tend to be more commitment with the organization. Mathieu and Zajac (1990) stated that organization understanding is linked up with organization commitment and with the components of organization commitment.(via ,affective, normative and continuous); it is also reported that if management is involve in acknowledging employees performance and their effect to solve problem prevailing to employees have positive relation with organization commitment (Brett, Cron & Slocum, 1995). Organization is made up of many things, which includes capital, work force, machinery and land. Commitment is required for the work force; the right people at the right place make the difference. In form of perceived organization support .organization reward .justice and support have positive relation with affective commitment (Meyer, et al., 1997. POS would in result affective commitment by encouraging employing through the obligation towards organization welfare which in return result realization of identity with the organization (Eisenberger, et al., 2001).

H4: POS positively impacts organizational commitment.

Interpersonal Justice OCB, Turnover and Organizational Commitment

The perceptions of the employees in the sense of equity are linked to important organizational variables as examples job satisfaction and commitment (Yavuz, 2010) POS (Rhoades, et al., 2002) and commitment to the organization. Ambrose and Schminke (2003) concluded that the relationship between Leader-member exchange, perceived organizational rigidity, organizational support, interactional justice and organizational citizenship behavior" noted that the 56% increase in organizational support, 56% of the increase in the organizational citizenship behavior.

Among these variables OCBs recently have been discussed in many organizational studies. There are some researches that have examined the relationship between OCB and organizational justice (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Yılmaz & Tasdan, 2009). Martin (1981) has stated that the judgments of fairness are made when people compare their rewards with others. This comparison process highlights relative deprivation (Martin, 1981). The mental deprivation causes a number of behavioral effects in organizations, including stress, dissatisfaction and quitting (Martin, 1981). Schwarzwald, Koslowsky, and Shalit (1992) also concluded that individuals who are deprived of justice had lower feelings of commitment, high absenteeism and the higher feelings of unfairness finally led to quitting their jobs.

H5: Interpersonal justice positively related to organizational citizenship behavior.

H6: Interpersonal justice negatively related to turnover.

H7: Interpersonal justice positively related to organizational commitment

Perceived organizational support would be influenced by various aspects of an employee's treatment by the organization and would, in turn, influence the employee's interpretation of organizational motives underlying that treatment (Eisenberger, et al., 1986). They summarized the possible antecedents of perceived organizational support by suggesting that positive activities by the organizations which benefited workers would be considered as evidence being cared. However, to explain why organizational justice may affect organizational positive outcomes (OCB, commitment, low turnover) through perceived organizational support, we invoked the group value model of organizational thus above assumptions appeal to make predictions that POS has positive relationship with OCB, turnover and organizational loyalty. Shore and Shore (1995) advocate the mediating role of POS when they discussed how perceptions of justice create a global schema of history of support Perceived organizational support is more likely to impact employee attitudes and behavior via fair treatment.

Therefore according to literature support we can hypothesize that interpersonal justice will possibly be related to organizational citizenship behavior because personal perceptions of justice has an impact on employee's general attitude that an organization values them and this may push the employee to reciprocate with enhanced OCB.

H8: POS mediate the relationship between interpersonal justice and OCB.

H9: POS mediate the relationship between interpersonal justice and organizational commitment.

H10: POS mediate the relationship between interpersonal justice and turnover

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 Schematic view of variables and their relationships

Methodology

Sample and Procedures

A large public sector tertiary hospital having 3000 employees was taken for data collection purpose. A sample of 180 subjects was randomly selected and questionnaires were personally administered to them. On the basis of theoretical support from previous researches, close ended questionnaires were used to test the hypotheses in hand. 137 respondents returned questionnaires and response rate remained 76%. However, 34 carelessly filled questionnaires were rejected and 103 questionnaires complete from all respects were included for analysis. After getting data ready for analysis, statistical treatment was given to it. Relationships were tested through correlation and regression through SPSS.

Since all the respondents were educated and could fill the questionnaire with complete understanding of questions. Thus we did not feel the need to translate the questionnaire into local language. Operationalization of variables and corresponding questions were adopted from different researchers. To measure Interpersonal Justice we used Bies and Moag (1986) 4 items scale with Chronbach alpha reliability 0.56, for POS Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson and Sowa (1986) 18 item scale with a reliability of .857, for OCB Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1989) 16 item scale with a reliability of .737, for Turnover intentions Vigoda (2000) 3 item scale with a reliability of .591 and organizational commitment Schechter (1985) 10 item scale with .86 reliability coefficient.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

The mean age of respondents was 31.40 years with (S.D = 6.33) and 70.9 % of the respondents were male and 29.1% respondents are female. Respondents include employees working in upper management, middle management, and lower management. The qualification of respondents ranged high secondary school were 3.9% , graduate are 15.5% , peoples who were qualified masters level were 68.9% and M.Phil./PhDs were 11.7%.

The descriptive analysis results revealed mean value for independent variable, interpersonal justice is 3.924 (S.D = 0.473) and the mean value for perceived organizational support is 5.1023 (S.D = 0.674); the mean value for dependent variables are, organizational citizenship behavior 5.4025 (S.D = .6642), the mean value of turnover intention is 2.524 (S.D = 0.6916); mean value for organization commitment is 3.7400 (S.D = 0.59114).

The correlation between interpersonal justice and POS is (r = .337, p < 0.01), which indicates a positive relationship with interpersonal justice and perceived organizational support; interpersonal justice and OCB also shows significant positive relationship (r = .317, p < 0.01), interpersonal justice and turnover has negative relationship as study perceived but this relationship is not significant. (r = -.193, p >.05); the relationship between interpersonal justice and organizational commitment positive in nature (r = .169, p > 0.05) although not strong.

The correlation between POS and OCB is strong positive relationship (r = .666, p < 0.01), the correlation between POS and turnover is strongly negative in nature (r = .482, p < 0.01), the correlation between POS and organizational commitment (r = .601, p < 0.01) which indicates strong positive relations.

The relationship between OCB and turnover is strongly negative as (r = .404, p < 0.01); the relationship between OCB and organizational commitment is also strong and positive (r = .570, p< 0.01 and the correlation between organization commitment and turnover is strongly negatives as many study perceived (r = -.445, p < 0.01). These all correlation demonstrated that these variables have strangeness in their direct relationship with each other. We find almost strong significant support for main hypothesis from co relation matrix analysis shown in the given table.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation

Variables

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Gender

0.71

0.5

1.00

 

 

Age

31.4

6.3

-0.11

1.00

 

 

Design.

4.15

1.9

0.004

0.05

1.00

 

 

Exp.

5.93

4.5

-.197*

.75**

-0.06

1.00

 

 

Quali.

3.88

0.7

-0.08

0.04

-0.07

0.1

1.00

 

Inter. Just

3.92

0.5

0.102

0.12

0.17

-0.03

-0.06

1.00

 

POS

5.1

0.7

0.046

-0.01

0

0.1

-0.07

.34**

1.00

OCB

5.4

0.7

0.081

0.01

0.06

0.03

-0.06

.327**

.67**

1.00

Turnover

2.52

0.7

-0.09

0.08

0.09

0.08

0.18

-0.19

-.48**

-.404**

1.00

OC

3.74

0.6

-0.04

-0.05

0

-0.01

0.03

0.17

.60**

.572**

-.45**

1.00

** Correlation is significant at the level 0.01 level

* Correlation is significant at the level 0.05 level

Regression Analysis

ANOVA was used to check the effect of demographic variables on dependent variables and only Designation was found to have an effect on POS. So in the first step of regression analysis, we entered control variable, in the second step we regressed all the dependent variables to see the causality of independent variable.

In our research the H1 assumes that interpersonal justice positively relates to perceived organizational support (POS), we regressed perceived organi-zational support (POS) on interpersonal justice and result demonstrate that perceived organizational support (POS) ( = .334, p < .01) is positively related to interpersonal justice. The R Square shows that only 0.05% of the variance in POS Is predicted by designation and 11.1% variance are predicted by interpersonal justice. However, we can now see that the direction of the relationship is positive: as predicted, the more interpersonal justice revolved in the organization the more the employee perceived organization support.

Table 2 Regression Analysis for Interpersonal Justice and POS

Predictors

POS

Model:1

Β

R

∆R

Main effect

 

 

 

Step 1

 

 

 

Control variable

 

.005

 

Step 2

 

 

 

Interpersonal justice

.334**

.117

.111**

 

 

 

 

 

The table 2 shows the regression coefficients. As there is 3 predictors, In H2 we presume that perceived organizational support (POS) positively relates organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), we regressed organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), on perceived organizational support (POS) and result make obvious that perceived organizational support (POS) ( = .666, p < .001) is positively related to organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).

In H3 assumes that perceived organizational support (POS) negatively relates to turnover , we regressed turnover on perceived organizational support (POS) and result express that turnover ( = -.482***, p < .001) is negatively related to perceived organizational support (POS).

In H4 assumes that perceived organizational support (POS) positively relates to organizational commitment, we regressed organizational commitment on perceived organizational support (POS) and result express that organizational commitment ( = .601***, p < .001) is positively related to perceived organizational support (POS). Yet H1, H2, H3 and H4 are accepted with strong significance support.

Table 3 Regression Analysis for POS and OCB, Turnover and Organizational Commitment (N=103)

Predictors

 

OCB

Turnover

Organizational Commitment

Model:1

Β

R

∆R

β

R

∆R

Β

R

∆R

Main effect

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control variable

 

.00

 

 

.033

 

 

.00

 

Step 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

POS

.67**

.44

.44**

-.47**

.25

.22**

.61**

.37

.37**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The table 3 shows the regression coefficients, there is 3 predictors; In H5, H6 and H7 we proposed interpersonal justice has also association with OCB, turnover and organizational commitment. In H5 we proposed that interactional justice has positive association with OCB, thus in analysis we regress OCB on interpersonal justice and results shows OCB has strong positive association with interpersonal justice ( = .317**, p < .01).

In H6 assumes that interpersonal justice negatively relates to turnover, we regressed turnover on interpersonal justice and result express that turnover ( = -.193*, p < .001) is negatively related to interpersonal justice; however we can say that the more the supervisor focus on interpersonal justice eventually this creates the less turnover rate in organization.

In H7 assumes that interpersonal justice positively relates to organizational commitment, we regressed organizational commitment on interpersonal justice and result expressed that organizational commitment ( = .169, p > .05) is positively related to interpersonal justice but not significantly as p value is greater than 5 %; so we reject our H7.

Table 4 Regression Analysis for interpersonal justice and OCB, Turnover and organizational commitment (N=103)

Predictors

OCB

Turnover

Organizational Commitment

Model:1

Β

R

∆R

Β

R

∆R

β

R

∆R

Main effect

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control variable

 

.004

 

 

.033

 

 

.001

 

Step 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interpersonal justice

.31**

.102

.09**

-.18

.066

.033

.17

.030

.029

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qualification demographic used as control Variable **p< .01, *p< .05

Mediation Analysis

We predicted that POS acts as a mediator between interpersonal justice and organizational citizenship behavior, turnover and organizational commitment. Barron and Kenny (1986) three step regression test to establish mediation was followed.

H8 states that perceived organizational support (POS) mediates the relationship between interpersonal justice and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). In order to test the mediating effect of perceived organizational support (POS) organizational citizenship behavior, perceived organizational support and interpersonal justice are regressed together as per condition prescribed by Barron Kenny (1986). As shown in table 3 significant reduction in variances after running multiple regression (from β=.334** to .104 &Δ R2= .098** to.010) .these results confirm full mediation condition prescribed by Barron and Kenny 1986 providing support to our hypothesis 8.

H9 states that perceived organizational support (POS) mediates the relationship between interpersonal justice and turnover, we regress turnover perceived organizational support and interpersonal justice together as per conditions described by Barron and Kenny 1986. As shown in Table 3 results of multiple regression reveal significant reduction in variances (from β=-.182 to -.028 &ΔR2= .033 to.001).These results prove full mediation of perceived organizational support between interpersonal justice and turnover.

H10 states that perceived organizational support (POS) mediates the relationship between interpersonal justice and organizational commitment, we regress organizational commitment, perceived organizational support and interpersonal justice together as per conditions described by Barron and Kenny 1986. As shown in Table 3 results of multiple regression reveal significant reduction in variances (from β=.172 to -.035 & ΔR2= .029 to.001).These results prove full mediation exist between interpersonal justice and organizational commitment.

Table 5 Mediation Analyses (N=103)

Predictors

OCB

Turnover

Organizational Commitment

Model:1

Β

R

∆R

β

R

∆R

Β

R

∆R

 

Main effect

 

Step 1

 

Cont. variable

0.00

0.03

0.00

 

Step 2

 

Inter- justice

.33**

0.10

.01**

-0.18

0.07

0.03

0.17

0.03

0.03

 

Model:1

 

Main effect

 

Step 1

 

Control variable

0.00

0.03

0.00

 

Step 2

 

POS

.63**

0.44

-.5**

0.25

.6**

0.37

 

Step 3

 

Inter- justice

0.10

0.45

0.01

-0.03

0.26

0.00

-0.04

0.37

0.00

 

***p< .001, **p< .01, *p< .05

Conclusion

The objective of our research was to see the impact of interpersonal justice in an organization and how these attributes contribute toward organizational citizenship behavior, turnover and organizational commitment. In this study we found reasonably good support for the hypotheses. In particular, 3 of the 4 predicted relationships concerning interpersonal justice have been direct and strong positive with perceived organizational support (POS), organizational citizenship behavior and turnover. However the relationship with organizational commitment is positive but insignificant according to this data and no support was found for this prediction. Thus people with high interpersonal fairness level in the organization they tend to develop good relationship with their organization and less likely to quit the organization.

The overall results of the study give strong support to our entire hypothesis. It was successfully found out that there was a significant impact of interpersonal justice on perceived organizational support, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover. The more involvement of this research is that perceived organizational support medicates the relationship between interpersonal justice and organizational citizenship behavior, turnover and organizational commitment (hypothesis 8, 9 and 10). These results demonstrated acceptance toward our prediction that perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior, turnover and organizational commitment; although in regression analysis no support was found between interpersonal justice and organizational commitment, but after mediation of POS this prediction existed with statistical support.

In social organizations highly pleasing value is Justice (Rawls, 1971). Thus interpersonal justice makes employees feel psychological superiority and develop emotional attachment with their organization. The employees having sense of psychological superiority and emotional attachment always perform better.

References

Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually distinct? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 491-503.

Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003).Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 295-307.

Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived organizational support and police performance: the moderating influence of socio-emotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 288-301.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-205.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1198.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1(1), 43-55.

Beugr, C. D. (1998). Managing Fairness in Organizations. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. Transaction Publishers.

Brett, J. F., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1995). Economic dependency on work: a moderator of the relationship between organizational commitment and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 261-271.

Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 339-356.

Chegini, M. G. (2009). The relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 1(2), 173-189.

Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1993). Competing on resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 363-380

Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. Handbook of Organizational Justice, 1, 35-58.

Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), 39-52.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001).Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164-209.

Crosby, F. (1984).The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27(3), 371-386.

DeCotiis, T. A., & Summers, T. P. (1987). A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment. Human Relations, 40(7), 445-470.

Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leadermember exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(4), 315-326.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-69.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-518.

Farh, J. L., Earley, S. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421-444.

Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the People's Republic of China. Organization Science,15, 241-253.

Fischer, R., & Smith, P. B. (2006). Who cares about justice? The moderating effect of values on the link between organizational justice and work behaviour. Applied Psychology, 55(4), 541-562.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological review, 161-178.

Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9-22.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399-432.

Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 3-21.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994).Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656-66.

Malatesta, R. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1996). Understanding the dynamics of organizational and supervisory commitment. In Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Society.

Martin, T. E. (1981). Species-area slopes and coefficients: a caution on their interpretation. American Naturalist, 118(6), 823-835.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990).A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological bulletin, 108(2), 171-194.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application. Sage Publication.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-862.

Mottaz, C. J. (1988). Determinants of organizational commitment. Human Relations, 41(6), 467-482.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover (Vol. 153). New York: Academic Press.

Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2010).An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 33-41.

Organ, D. W. (1988).Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The Motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1989). A second generation measure of organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished Manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-711.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of applied psychology, 86(5), 825-839.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. Free press.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.

Schechter, D. S. (1983). Value and Continuance Commitment: A Field Test of a Dual Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland.

Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Shalit, B. (1992). A field study of employees' attitudes and behaviors after promotion decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 511-527.

Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995).Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82-111.

Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 774-791.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-521.

Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship, and role definition effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 789-802.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. American psychologist, 28(2), 107-121.

Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational politics, job attitudes, and work outcomes: Exploration and implications for the public sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(3), 326-347.

Van-Dyne, L., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M. E., & Cummings, L. L. (2000). Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizational citizenship in a non-work setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 3-23.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82-111.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 590.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180.

Yavuz, M. (2010). The effects of teachers perception of organizational justice and culture on organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(5), 695-701.

Yilmaz, K., & Tasdan, M. (2009).Organizational citizenship and organizational justice in Turkish primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(1), 108-126.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




ISSN 2414-2336 (Print), ISSN 2523-2525 (Online)