Promoting Employees’ Psychological Wellbeing: A Study on
consequences of Organizational Justice

Names of Authors:
Ms. Simran Kaur

Corresponding Author:
Ms. Simran Kaur

Affiliations:
Ms. Simran Kaur,
Assistant Professor,
Delhi School of Professional Studies and Research
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Dwarka, India)

Mailing Address:
AP Block, Flat No. 32-C, Pitanpura, Delhi-110034

Contact Details:
91-9953454644

Email Address:
[email protected]
1
ABSTRACT
The most important resource for effective functioning of an organization is human resource. Organizations
require people who make efforts beyond their prescribed responsibility. Organization needs to create an
environment for people where they feel that they have been treated fairly. A justly supportive system and
effective utilization of competencies will create a sense of organization being fair to employees. The main
purpose of this paper is to test the extent of influence of Organizational Justice on various dimensions of
Psychological wellbeing like self-acceptance, personal growth, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive
relationship with others and purpose of life. In this study, the Organizational Justice perceptions of lecturers
working in private institution were examined. The work group of the study is formed by 200 employees working
as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in private colleges of Delhi NCR. The result obtained
from Pearson correlation and stepwise multiple regressions suggest that Distributive Justice is found out to be the
strongest predictor of Environment Mastery whereas Personal Growth has been predicted by Instructional Justice.
It means that if people have favorable distributive justice perceptions, they are also likely to have positive
emotions and more favorable attitude and behavior directed towards the organization that has provided the
favorable outcomes. Moreover Procedural Justice explains 85.6% of variance in prediction of Purpose in Life. As
a whole, Organizational Justice is found out to be the significant predictor of Psychological Wellbeing. Stepwise
multiple regressions clearly indicate that various dimensions of Organizational Justice (Distributive, Procedural
and Interactional Justice) can significantly predict the dimensions of Psychological Wellbeing. Organizational
Justice Perception factor explains 92.1% of Psychological Wellbeing. The theoretical framework proposed in the
paper on Psychological Wellbeing would help the researchers and management people to understand the impact
of Perceptions about Organizational Justice in better efficiency of the organization.
KEYWORDS: Distributive Justice, Procedural justice, Interactional Justice, Psychological Wellbeing, college
Lecturers
INTRODUCTION
In today’s competitive scenario, organizations need to create an environment for people where they feel that they
have been treated fairly. Perception about Organizational Justice is a key concern for all employees at workplace.
Concerns about fairness in organization exist in different aspects of employees’ work life. Employees are
concerned about the fairness in distribution of resources like rewards, pay, and so on. This is called Distributive
Justice (Homans, 1901; Adams, 1963; Deutsch, 1975; Leventhal, 1976). Employees are also concerned about
fairness in decision making process. This is termed as Procedural Justice (Thibaut and Walker, 1975; Leventhal,
1980). Finally employees also pay attention to fairness in interpersonal treatment. This is known as Interactional
Justice (Bies and Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1993). Collectively Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and
Interactional Justice are known as Organizational Justice. The term Organizational Justice was first coined by
Greenberg (1987b). Organizational Justice refers to people’s perception about organization’s fairness and its
reactions towards such perception. Unfair treatment not only decreases job performance but also reduces quality
of work and degree of cooperation among workers (Fatimah, Amiraa and Halim, 2011).
Psychological Wellbeing can be defined as a person’s emotional and cognitive evaluation of his or her life
(Diener, Oishi and Lucas, 2003). These evaluations consist of person’s emotional reactions, mood fluctuations
and opinion about contentment. It also includes what happiness means to people (Diener, Oishi and Lucas, 2003).
2
Though opinion of people, reactions, mood fluctuations might vary person to person but Psychological Wellbeing
is effected by various other factors like past experience, personality traits (Diener, Oishi and Lucas, 2003),
personal objectives and cultural background (Diener, Suh, Lucas and Smith, 1999).
According to Self Determination Theory (Ryan R. and Deci E., 1985), Psychological Wellbeing is dependent on
satisfaction of the Psychological needs as:
i. The need for autonomy.
ii. The need for relatedness.
iii. The need for competence.
The model of Psychological Wellbeing proposed by Ryff (1989), consist of following six dimensions;
i. Self-Acceptance: To have a positive attitude towards self, accepts all aspects of self, including good and
bad quality.
ii. Positive relation with others: To have honest, satisfying relationship with others.
iii. Autonomy: To be independent, to regulate behavior from within.
iv. Environmental Mastery: To control complex environment and make effective use of external
opportunities.
v. Purpose in Life: To have focus in life, give meaning to life, to have aim in life.
vi. Personal Growth: To be open to new experiences, believes in self-improvement.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Below mentioned table summarizes the literature on Organizational Justice (Lather and Kaur, 2014):
Year
1963
Researcher
Adams
1975
1976
1977
Thibaut &
Walker
Leventhal
Folger
1986
1987
Bies&Moag
Huseman
1987
Greenburg
1991
Moorman
1993
Niehoff&
Key Concept
Men and women are in never ending state of comparing themselves with
referent group of individuals.
Introduced the concept of Procedural Justice.
Demonstrated that Procedural Justice is an extension of equity theory.
Shifted the focus from employees’ reaction for inequitable outcomes to how the
will react to unfair procedures.
Introduced the term Interactional Justice as part of Procedural Justice.
Only three types of individuals can come to equity: sensitive, benevolent,
entitled
Added two dimensions to equity and Organizational Justice theories: ReactiveProactive Dimension; Process- Content Dimension.
Explained the relationship between perception of Fairness and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior.
Emphasized the fact that monitoring of an employee increases the chances of
3
1994
Moorman
Konovsky&
Pugh
1995
1996
Harrison
Tang et al.
1997
Netemeyer
2001
CohenCharash,
Spector
employee getting involved in Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange Theory were studied
and found that trust plays a mediating role in Organizational Justice and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
Stressed upon psychometric cognitive perception of Organizational Justice
Research on relationship between Job satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment.
Found out direct relationship between personal fit, justice, Job satisfaction and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
Suggested that all three types of Organizational Justice: Procedural Justice,
Distributive Justice and Interactional Justice can cause Organizational
Citizenship Behavior but cultural might also have an impact on it.
Table 1: Literature on Organizational Justice
Below mentioned table summarizes the literature on Psychological Wellbeing:
Year
1984
Researcher
Diener
1985
Michalos
1992
Diener, Suh, Lucas
and Smith
Diener, Suh, Lucas
and Smith
1999
Key Concept
Telic theories of Wellbeing: Attainment of happiness is dependent on
need satisfaction.
Multiple Discrepancy Theory of Satisfaction: One’s happiness is
dependent on the difference between one’s current position and the
standards.
Dynamic Equilibrium Model: A person’s wellbeing is dependent on
their personality.
Bottom up approach: People will be happy if they can fulfill their basic
human wants.
Table 2: Literature on Organizational Justice
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The following objectives were framed for the study:
(i)
(ii)
To determine the relationship between Organizational Justice and Psychological Wellbeing of college
lecturers.
To find out the relationship if Organizational Justice can predict Psychological Wellbeing among college
lecturers.
HYPOTHESES
Hypothesis 1: There is significant relationship between Organizational Justice and Psychological Wellbeing
of college lecturers.
4
Hypothesis 1a: There is significant relationship between Distributive Justice and Psychological Wellbeing
(Self-acceptance, personal growth, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relationship with others and
purpose of life) of college lecturers.
Hypothesis 1b: There is significant relationship between Procedural Justice and Psychological Wellbeing
(Self-acceptance, personal growth, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relationship with others and
purpose of life) of college lecturers.
Hypothesis 1c: There is significant relationship between Interactional Justice and Psychological Wellbeing
(Self-acceptance, personal growth, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relationship with others and
purpose of life) of college lecturers.
Hypothesis 2: Organizational Justice can significantly predict the value of Psychological Wellbeing among
college lecturers.
Hypothesis 2a: Distributive Justice can significantly predict the value of Psychological Wellbeing (Selfacceptance, personal growth, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relationship with others and purpose
of life) among college lecturers.
Hypothesis 2b: Procedural Justice can significantly predict the value of Psychological Wellbeing (Selfacceptance, personal growth, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relationship with others and purpose
of life) among college lecturers.
Hypothesis 2c: Interactional Justice can significantly predict the value of Psychological Wellbeing (Selfacceptance, personal growth, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relationship with others and purpose
of life) among college lecturers.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The present study was conducted on 200 college lecturers (Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant
Professors) in the age group of 25-50 years working in public and private institutes of Delhi NCR.
Sample
The employees from public and private colleges of Delhi NCR were taken as sample to participate in the study.
Out of 500lecturers contacted only 200lecturers completed the questionnaire and returned back.
Tools
Scale I: Organizational Justice Scale (Moorman, 1991)
This scale analyzed Organizational Justice in three dimensions - Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and
Interactional Justice. The scale had 20 items, 5 of these 20 items were developed for Distributive Justice, 6 for
Procedural Justice and 9 for Interactional Justice. This is a 7 point scale and scores on the scale varies from 1=
strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree. The reliability of coefficient of the scale has been calculated as 0.863.
5
Scale II: Psychological Wellbeing Scale (Ryff, 1989)
This scale analyzed Psychological Wellbeingin six dimensions Self-acceptance, personal growth, autonomy,
environmental mastery, positive relationship with others and purpose of life. This is a 7 point scale and scores on
the scale varies from 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree. Negative phrased items were recoded.The
reliability of coefficient of the scale has been calculated as 0.826.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Pearson correlation coefficient was computed to find out the relationship between the variables
OJ
Pearson
Correlation
OJ
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
PWB
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
DJ
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
PJ
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
IJ
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
AU
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
EM
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
PG
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
PWB
DJ
Correlations
PJ
IJ
AU
EM
PG
PR
PL
SA
1
.959**
1.000**
.833**
.987**
.886**
.670**
.317**
-.741**
-.067
.783**
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.343
200
.000
200
.959**
1
.954**
.879**
.926**
.975**
.619**
.082
-.868**
.127
.774**
.000
200
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.250
200
.000
200
.074
200
.000
200
1.000**
.954**
1
.819**
.991**
.880**
.685**
.325**
-.735**
-.094
.771**
.000
200
.000
200
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.185
200
.000
200
.833**
.879**
.819**
1
.736**
.802**
.223**
.166*
-.663**
.473**
.925**
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
200
.000
200
.000
200
.002
200
.019
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.987**
.926**
.991**
.736**
1
.859**
.758**
.337**
.721**
-.216**
.696**
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.002
200
.000
200
.886**
.975**
.880**
.802**
.859**
1
.651**
-.109
-.936**
.142*
.654**
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
200
.000
200
.123
200
.000
200
.044
200
.000
200
.670**
.619**
.685**
.223**
.758**
.651**
1
-.034
-.686**
-.611**
.077
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
.002
200
.000
200
.000
200
200
.637
200
.000
200
.000
200
.280
200
.317**
.082
.325**
.166*
.337**
-.109
-.034
1
.399**
-.341**
.447**
.000
200
.250
200
.000
200
.019
200
.000
200
.123
200
.637
200
200
.000
200
.000
200
.000
200
6
Pearson
-.741** -.868** -.735** -.663**
.721** -.936** -.686**
.399**
1 -.150* -.428**
Correlation
PR
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.033
.000
N
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Pearson
-.067
.127
-.094
.473** -.216**
.142* -.611** -.341**
-.150*
1
.408**
Correlation
PL
Sig. (2-tailed)
.343
.074
.185
.000
.002
.044
.000
.000
.033
.000
N
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Pearson
.783**
.774**
.771**
.925**
.696**
.654**
.077
.447** -.428**
.408**
1
Correlation
SA
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.280
.000
.000
.000
N
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Total Organizational Justice (OJ), Total Psychological Wellbeing (PWB), Distributive Justice (DJ), Procedural Justice (PJ), Interactional
Justice (IJ),Self-acceptance (SA), personal growth (PG) , autonomy (AU), environmental mastery (EM), positive relationship with others
(PR) and purpose of life (PL) as the dependent variable.
Table 3: Correlation Matrix
It can be observed that there is significant relationship between Total Organizational Justice and Total
Psychological Wellbeing as r = 0.959 and hence H1 has been accepted at 0.01 level of significance. Distributive
Justice is significantly correlated with Total Psychological Wellbeing (r=0.954), thus H1a is accepted. Moreover
Distributive Justice is highly correlated with Autonomy (r=0.880), Environment mastery (r=0.685) and Selfacceptance (r=0.771) and negatively correlated with personal growth (r= -0.735). Procedural Justice is also
significantly correlated with Total Psychological Wellbeing (r=0.879), thus H1b is accepted. Moreover
Procedural Justice is highly correlated with Autonomy (r=0.802), and Self-acceptance (r=0.925). Interactional
Justice is significantly correlated with Total Psychological Wellbeing (r=0.926), thus H1c is also accepted.
Moreover Interactional Justice is significantly correlated with Autonomy (r= 0.859) and positive relationship with
others (r= 0.721).
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Regression analysis is being done to find the relationship between certain dimensions and variables. Linear
regression attempts to model the relationship between two variables by fitting a linear equation to observed data.
One variable is considered to be an explanatory variable, and the other is considered to be a dependent variable.
All the three factors i.e. Distributive justice (DJ), Procedural justice (PJ) and Interactional justice (IJ) are taken as
the independent variables while all the dimensions of Psychological Wellbeing (PWB): Self-acceptance (SA),
personal growth (PG) , autonomy (AU), environmental mastery (EM), positive relationship with others (PR) and
purpose of life (PL) are takenas the dependent variable. Stepwise Regression analysis has been done on the
variables.
Variables
R
R2
SEmean
7
F-value
Df
Beta
AUTONOMY
Distributive justice
Distributive justice, Procedural Justice
Distributive justice, Procedural Justice,
Interactional Justice
ENVIRONMENT MASTERY
Interactional Justice
Distributive justice, Interactional Justice
PERSONAL GROWTH
Interactional Justice
POSITIVE REALTIONSHIP WITH
OTHERS
Distributive justice
Distributive justice, Procedural Justice
Distributive justice, Procedural Justice,
Interactional Justice
PURPOSE IN LIFE
Distributive justice
Distributive justice, Procedural Justice
Distributive justice, Procedural Justice,
Interactional Justice
SELF-ACCEPTANCE
Procedural Justice
PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING
(Dependent Variable)
ORGANIZATIONAL
JUSTICE
(Independent Variable)
.880
.892
.950
.775
.795
.903
1.99383
1.90742
1.31723
681.193**
381.830**
606.122**
198
197
196
.880
.678, .247
.925, .729, .717
.758
.907
.575
.822
2.50626
1.62506
267.816**
455.486**
198
197
.758
.946, .397
.337
.114
.39819
25.3989**
198
.337
.735
.743
.861
.540
.552
.741
.86439
.85600
.65168
232.795**
121.138**
187.305**
198
197
196
.735
.584, .184
.946, .387, .945
.473
.962
.950
.223
.926
.905
2.27376
.70326
1.1713
56.934**
1233.959**
678.172**
198
197
196
0.473
.966, .146
.582,.728, .818
.925
.856
.65934
1178.834**
198
0.925
.959
.921
2.43241
2293.623**
198
0.959
Table 4: Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis
Table 4 represents Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis to predict Psychological Wellbeing using various
dimension of Organizational Justice. Autonomy has been predicted by Distributive Justice where R=.880 and
F=681.193, Beta=.880, Procedural Justice with calculated as .892, F=381.830 (p<.01), Beta=.712 and
Interactional Justice with R=.950, F=606.122 (P<.01), Beta=.712. All these three dimensions explained 90.3% of
variance in prediction of Autonomy. As a whole, Distributive Justice is found out to be the strongest predictor of
Autonomy with Beta=.925.
Environment Mastery has been predicted by Instructional Justice where R=.758 and F=267.816, Beta=.758 and
Distribution Justice with R=.907, F=455.486 (P<.01), Beta=.946. All these three dimensions explained 82.2% of
variance in prediction of Environment Mastery. As a whole, Distributive Justice is found out to be the strongest
predictor of Environment Mastery with Beta=.946.
8
Personal Growth has been predicted by Instructional Justice where R=.337 and F=25.3989 and it explained 11.4%
of variance in prediction of Personal Growth.
Positive Relationship with others has been predicted by Distributive Justice where R=.735 and
F=232.795,Beta=.735. Procedural Justice was calculated as .743, F=121.138 (p<.01), Beta=.184 and Interactional
Justice with R=.950, F=187.305 (P<.01), Beta=.945. All these three dimensions explained 74.1% of variance in
prediction of Positive Relationship with others. As a whole, Distributive Justice is found out to be the strongest
predictor of Positive Relationship with others with Beta=.946.
Purpose in Life predicted by Distributive Justice where R=.473 and F=56.934,Beta=.473. Procedural Justice was
calculated as R=.962, F=1233.959(p<.01), Beta=.146 and Interactional Justice with R=.862, F=678.172 (P<.01),
Beta=.818. All these three dimensions explained 90.5% of variance in prediction of Purpose in Life. As a whole,
Interactional Justice is found out to be the strongest predictor of Purpose in Life with Beta=.818.Self-Acceptance
has been predicted by Procedural Justice was calculated as R=.925, F=1178.834(p<.01), Beta=.925. Procedural
Justice explains 85.6% of variance in prediction of Purpose in Life.
Psychological well-being has been predicted by Organizational Justice where R=.959 and F=2293.623
(P<.01),Beta=.959. Organizational Justice explains 92.1% of variance in prediction of Psychological well-being.
CONCLUSION
The main focus of this study was to establish a relationship between perception about Organizational Justice and
Psychological Wellbeing. On the basis of the result of this study, it can be concluded that there is a significant
relationship between Organizational Justice and Psychological Wellbeing. The study revealed that Organizational
Justice is highly correlated with Psychological Wellbeing (r= 0.959). Thus college management should consider
fairness in distribution, procedure and interaction in order to foster Psychological Wellbeing of college lecturers.
It is clear from the study that positive experience with Organizational Justice will not only improve the workplace
behavior of employees but also affects their personal life by refining their relationship with others.
It is observed that Hypothesis1 accepted as there is significant relationship between Organizational Justice and
Psychological Wellbeing among college lecturers. Thus it can be concluded that lecturers perception about
fairness in the organization/institution plays significant role in predicting Self-acceptance, personal growth,
autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relationship with others and purpose of life. To find out if
Organizational Justice significantly predictsPsychological well-being (Hypothesis2), stepwise multiple regression
analysis was done. It helped to predict various dimensions of Psychological well-being, using various dimensions
of Psychological well-being.
Table 4 shows that Autonomy has been predicted by Distributive Justice along with Procedural and Interactional
Justice. Further it can be concluded that Distributive Justice is found out to be the strongest predictor of
Environment Mastery whereas Personal Growth has been predicted by Instructional Justice.It means that if people
have favorable distributive justice perceptions, they are also likely to have positive emotions and more favorable
attitude and behavior directed towards the organization that has provided the favorable outcomes.Moreover
9
Procedural Justice explains 85.6% of variance in prediction of Purpose in Life. As a whole, Organizational Justice
is found out to be the significant predictor of Psychological Wellbeing.
In short, the result of the research can be concluded as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
There is certainly a relationship between Organizational Justice and Psychological Wellbeing.
If there is positive perception about Distributive Justice, it will have favorable effect on Autonomy
Environment mastery and Self-acceptance and it is negatively correlated with personal growth.
Procedural Justice is highly correlated with Autonomy and Self-acceptance
Interactional Justice is significantly correlated with Total Psychological Wellbeing
Organizational Justice explains 92.1% of variance in prediction of Psychological well-being.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
Present study attempted to measure the impact of Organizational Justice Perception on Psychological Wellbeing
of College lecturers. The results suggested that there is positive relationship between Organizational Justice and
Psychological Wellbeing. Moreover various dimensions of Psychological Wellbeing like Self-acceptance,
personal growth, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relationship with others and purpose of life, can be
significantly predicted by various dimensions of Organizational Justice. By increasing Autonomy, management
can increase the utilization of knowledge base of lecturers. Moreover it increases knowledge transfer among
lecturers and their other colleagues also. Even at personal front, lecturers may feel positive about their life, may
generate positive emotions which further give rise to feeling of satisfaction in life. A person having positive
relations with others will have trusting relationships and value human relationships. This in turn will foster team
spirit in the organization. A person who is having high score of Environment Mastery will be competent enough
to effectively utilize the opportunities. Thus it can be concluded that fairness perception will work as collective
support system within the organization which will help to develop satisfied workforce, further leading to high
level of Psychological wellbeing among employees. This study emphasize on the on fair practices in colleges in
order to Psychological Wellbeing of college lecturer. Fairness in organization can be treated as the most important
ingredient to ensure psychological wellbeing of the employees.
REFERENCES





Adams, J. Stacey (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology,67, 422-436.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology, 2, 267-299.
Bies, R. J., &Moag, J. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B.
H. Sheppard, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations,1, 43–55. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Barnard, C.I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MassHarvard University Press.
Bateman, T.S. & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship between affect
and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.
10

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86,278–321.

Cropanzano, R.., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish
procedural from interactional justice. Group and Organizational Management, 27, 324–351.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., &Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to organizational justice.
In J. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 20, 1–113. Greenwich, CT:
JAIPress.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321.
Diener, E., Tay, L., &Oishi, S. (2013). Rising income and the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 267-276.
Deutsch M. 1975. Equity, equality and need: what determines which value will be used as the basis for
distributivejustice? Journal of Social Issues ,31,137-149.















Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in humanbehavior. New
York: Plenum
Fatimah, O., Amiraa, A. M. & Halim, F. W. (2011). The relationships between organizational justice,
organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction, Pertanika J. Social Science & Humanity, 19, 115 –
121.
Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of "voice" and improvement on
experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,108-119.
Greenberg, J. (1987). Taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9–
22.
Gilliland, S. W., & Hale, J. (2005). How do theories of organizational justice inform just employee selection
practices? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: Fundamental
questions about justice in the workplace, 411–438. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Huseman, R., Hatfield, J., & Miles, E. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity
construct. The Academy of Management Review, 12, 222-234.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness
in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in
theory and research, 27-55. New York: Plenum.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L.
Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 9, 91-131. New York:
Academic Press.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R. (1966). Social Psychology of Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 656–669.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-Collectivism as an individual difference predictor
of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142.
11




Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology,76,
845–855.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of
monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bowles, J. S., MacKee, D. O., &McMurrian, R. (1997). An investigation into the
antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal of Marketing, 61,
85–98.
Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books.
Lexington, MA.

Ryf , C. D. (1989a). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069-1081.

Ryf , C. D. (1989b). In the eye of the beholder: Views of psychological well-being among middle-aged and
older adults. Psychology and Aging, 4(2), 195-210.

Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are outcome justice and outcome favorability
distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research, 16, 309–341.
Tyler, T. R., &Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and
behavioral engagement. Philadelphia,Psychology Press.
Tang, T. L. P., &Sarsfield-Baldwin, L. J. (1996). Distributive and procedural justice as related to
satisfaction and commitment. S.A.M Advanced Management Journal, 2, 25-31.
Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due process in
performance appraisal: a quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495
– 523
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.




12
Download

Promoting Employees` Psychological Wellbeing: A Study on