Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
Factors Affecting Employees’ Perception for Procedural and
Distributive Justice
Faisal K. Qureishi* and Deep Mala Harani**
This study was carried out to understand the impact of demographic factors
on employee perception about distributive and procedural justice. Four
demographic variables, namely: age, gender, status and tenure of employees,
were chosen as predictors, and their relationship with the two dependent
variables: procedural and distributive justice, was studied. A total of eight
hypotheses were formulated, linking each predictor to both dependent
variables, individually. A questionnaire was then designed consisting of
structured questions, determining employees’ perceptions towards distributive
and procedural justice in their organizations. Unrestricted non-probability
sampling was employed to choose respondents working in different
organizations – from universities to banks, and contact was established via
survey. Data thus collected was processed using SPSS and analyzed through
ANOVA and One-Sample T-test. It was seen that none of the predictors
caused a significant variation in employee perceptions, except in the case of
status and procedural justice, where significant variations were observed with
respect to employee responses at different levels or positions in organizations.
Key Words: Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice, Employee Perception
Field: Management
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
The expression procedural justice is related to workers‟ assessment of fairness of the
procedures applied to evaluate the benefits received in companies (Ngodo, 2008).
Procedural justice consists of four equity dimensions: procedures, incentives, fairness,
and information. Procedures relate to the degree to which workers assess the methods
employed in allocating incentives. Fairness points to the intensity to which workers are
of the opinion that the relevant methods have honestly been employed in distributing
resources. Justice elaborates the manner in which workers assess the treatment they
are receiving by their supervisors. Information is the quality of communication practiced
by employees and management (Ngodo, 2008).
Distributive justice is the scale or the extent to which employees are offered benefits in
return for their contribution and productivity to the company (Cropanzano & Greenberg,
1997).
_________________
* Faisal K. Qureishi is an Assistant Professor at Iqra University, Karachi, Pakistan,
Email: faisalk@iqra.edu.pk
** Deep Mala, MBA, Iqra University and a Program Coordinator in the Department of Media Science, Iqra
University, Karachi, Pakistan, Email: deep.harani@yahoo.com
1
Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
Workers‟ perception is the way by which procedures are inferred and other
organizational features are interpreted. It may be subjective, but certainly gives an
arguable insight to how employees think with regard to their organizations. Perception is
important because individual behavior is based on interpretation of reality, rather than
reality itself (Robbins, 2004).
Abdullah, Spickett, Rumchev and Dhaliwal (2009) carried out research on employee
perception towards work place attributes and security. Structured interviews were
carried out from employees working for hospitals and the data proved that work place
security took top priority where as job-stress was relegated to the last place.
Saad, Samah and Juhdi (2008) explored quality of work-life from faculty members in
universities. Ten factors were chosen to study quality of work-life, and, in the second
phase, these were correlated to motivation. Three factors: autonomy, positivity, and
productivity, came out as significant.
Edgar and Geare (2004) in their paper contributed to the understanding of variations in
workers‟ perception for HRM characteristics with respect to their demographics. Their
study inferred that personal characteristics have a strong impact on perception of HRM
practices.
1.2 Hypotheses
H1: Employees perception for Procedural justice is independent of employees‟ age
H2: Employees perception for Procedural justice is independent of employees‟ gender
H3: Employees perception for Procedural justice is independent of employees‟ status
H4: Employees perception for Procedural justice is independent of employees‟ tenure
H5: Employees perception for Distributive justice is independent of employees‟ age
H6: Employees perception for Distributive justice is independent of employees‟ gender
H7: Employees perception for Distributive justice is independent of employees‟ status
H8: Employees perception for Distributive justice is independent of employees‟ tenure
1.3 Definitions
 PROCEDURAL JUSTICE: The notion that fair procedures are the best guarantee
for fair outcomes. Procedural justice is concerned with making and implementing
decisions according to fair processes.
 DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of
one‟s outcomes. When a reward is allocated or a decision is made, people often
make a judgment whether or not the outcome was fair. This judgment is referred
to as a distributive justice.
 EMPLOYEE PERCEPTION: According to Robbins, employee perception can be
defined as „a process by which individuals (employees) organize and interpret
their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their work environment‟
(2004, p. 132). Perception is not necessarily based on reality, but is merely a
2
Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
perspective from a particular individual‟s view of a situation. In dealing with the
concept of organizational behavior, perception becomes important because
„people‟s behavior is based on their perception of what reality is, not on reality
itself; the world as it is perceived is the world that is behaviorally important‟
(Robbins et al, 2004, p.132).
2. Literature Review
Guiliano, Levine and Leonard (2006) used data from a big American retail chain, and
studied how variation in ethnicity, age, and sex amongst supervisors and employees
influence the employees‟ turnover, dropouts, and growth. It was found that demographic
variables do have potentially significant and occasionally strong influence on job results.
This is particularly appropriate for variations in caste, which continuously results in
strong influence and creates the biggest impact. Generally, demographic variations are
inclined to create negative impact on job outputs (i.e., higher turnover and termination
rates, and lower growth chances). But in rare cases, where conventionally lower-level
supervisors are managing higher-level employees, variations produce positive impact
on workers (Guiliano, Levine & Leonard, 2006).
Dalen, Henkin and Schippers (2010) studied how age-sensitive are human resource
practices? With the help of a survey in Dutch firms, they examined how managers cope
with the idea of old employees. They added value to their study interviewing employees
to carry out a comparison of HR theory and implementation. Conclusion was drawn that
an insignificant percentage of managers are employing methods to improve output
(development programs) or align output with salary. HR policies are designed to relieve
old-age employees: providing them additional leaves, early lay-off, or attractive job
security: old-age employees who do not work well are sustained, while their younger
colleagues, in same situation, are fired (Dalen, Henkin & Schippers).
Riordan and Shore (1997) studied the impact of a worker‟s proximity to the
demographic lay-out of the work-unit on personal-level outlook by taking 98 work-units
from a life insurance firm. Results showed that proximity in ethnic origin influenced
employees‟ outlook toward their work unit, as also sensitivity to chances of growth.
Negligible findings were discovered for proximity in sexual category and job-term. This
work indicates that demographic factors might show varying problems in terms of
influence on workers‟ outlook in their work groups (Riordan & Shore, 1997).
Qayyum and Sukirno (2012) studied variations in the comparative significance and
presence of multiple motivators for employees working for banks. The impact of
selective demographic factors was examined in shaping employees‟ actions in grading
the magnitude of definite motivators. The results demonstrated from 12 motivators, six
displayed meaningful variations with respect to significance and presence to workers.
Amongst these factors, the accessibility to workers of good pay, tenure-based growth,
and fair work and family life proportion, is low as compared to significance status
depicted by the grade levied on them. Nevertheless, the three residue variables:
professional growth, job security, and opportunities to improve society, have strong
3
Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
levels of presence as compared to their significance level. Also, maturity, knowledge,
learning and sexual category are discovered to have strong impact on rating actions of
workers in the significance of different motivators (Qayyum & Sukirno, 2012).
Abdullah, Spickett, Rumchev and Dhaliwal (2009) studied the attitude of workers
concerning the administration of professional well-being and security in state-run health
units. Personnel from three government health units in Malaysia were included in this
research. Information was gathered with the help of questionnaires. Inferences were
drawn through statistical methods, which indicated that workers regarded security as
the highest priority factor and job stress as the most minor factor (Abdullah, Spickett,
Rumchev & Dhaliwal, 2009).
Worker participation has assumed the role of a buzz word in the last decade in business
organizations and HR firms. Nevertheless, worker participation has never really been
assessed in research studies and comparatively less information exists concerning the
cause and effect of participation. Saks (2006) applied a framework of predictors and
effects of work and institutional associations relying on cultural interactions. Findings
showed that there is a substantial variation between work and institutional associations.
It was found that procedural justice affects organizational commitment (Saks, 2006).
Hazards information is the transaction of awareness and opinions about risks amongst
the decision makers and employees (Lundgren & McMakin, 1998). For a number of
factors companies tend to create awareness about hazards to their workers. In
organizations, hazards in formation is employed to educate workers concerning security
and life hazards prevailing in the office (Noecker, 2009). This information helps shape
workers‟ attitude towards norms with the objective of avoiding accidents. Hazards
information also assumes an implicit design in symbols, banners, and top level
decisions (Lundgren &McMakin, 1998). Hazards information is further categorized into
empathy, agreement, and accident information. Hazards information influences the
attitude towards hazards (Gerrard, Gibbons & Reis-Bergan, 1999).
Institutional maturity is the enhancement of an institution‟s ability to attain its objectives
and targets (Smith, 2005). It is a method applied in organizations to administer
innovation, achieve objectives, and execute plans (Wheatley, Tannenbaum, Griffin &
Quade, 2003). The technique of institutional maturity is framed on dynamics of group
psychology and sociology (Waclawski & Church, 2002). If a process does not
encourage innovation, elaboration and productivity, then it is just another perspective of
employee management, rather than institutional maturity. The act of motivating change,
encouraging workers, and crafting business policy is a component of institutional
maturity (Harris, Griffin & Murray, 2008). Sometimes innovation influences the extent of
workers‟ commitment (Reina & Reina, 2004). Caudron (2003) also discussed the
administration of change as an important determinant of organizational commitment.
This factor probably affects workers‟ attitude along with motivation and turnover
(Krause, Hidly & Hodson, 1990).
4
Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
A study by Conybeare (2003) presents a three way classification for relating and
evaluating ideas concerning the politics and economy of global distributive justice.
Experts in economics advocate collective benchmarks, identifying capital equity as a
sub-factor of fair disbursement. Intellectuals who focus on politics, are of the opinion
that ethical considerations impose on allocations, a factor which takes into account most
of current discourse. Still another idea apart from the two cited earlier, looks at the merit
of various contestants to rewards, mostly in the background of procedures. Despite the
fact that such norms are not global in practice, it is this approach which is relevant at
this point, in the context of ideological relationship to global issues and functional
implications of equity, which includes clear ideas for helping less developed nations.
The strength of every category of ideas relies on the problem being discussed and the
objectives of the philosopher (Conybeare, 2003).
Bladder and Tyler (2003) tested the validity of the four-factor framework of procedural
justice which proposes that individuals assess the equity of collective processes through
four kinds of fairness. The framework proposes that individuals are affected by two
components of the legal systems within a group: these components pertain to decision
making arbitrating as also to the fairness of procedure which has been applied
collectively. Also, it is assumed that individuals are exclusively affected by two
components of the power wielders whom they interact with: the standard of arbitration
and the value of behavior they get in return. The outcome of the study validates the
proposition of the four-factor framework and concludes that the four components of the
procedural decisions indicated in the framework work towards broad assessments of
the equity of collective systems (Bladder & Tyler, 2003).
Almost three decades back, in their ground breaking study on procedural justice,
Thibaut and Walker (1975) proposed that claimants are mindful as to how their conflicts
would be sorted out along with the final results. Later studies in different perspectives
give arguable data for this proposition. Thibaut and Walker‟s (1975) framework of
procedural justice had a lasting impact on procedural justice literature. Their
methodology relates the importance given to processes with the motivation to affect
results; therefore, it describes process equity as the degree of interest taken by
individuals in the processes.
Lind and Tyler(1988) formulated a different framework of process equity, which
connects process fairness to interpersonal exchange. The framework proposes that
process equity is determined by standards which are interpersonal in essence; for
example prestige, loyalty to the power wielders, and lack of bias (Lind & Tyler, 1988).
As far back as 1960‟s social scientists began to observe and relate job and personal
life. A number of such studies provide evidence that organizational life has important
influence on employees and their homes. (Greenhaus&Beutell,1985; Kossek & Ozeki,
1998; Lewis & Cooper, 1987). A turbulent work place along with conflicting work and
domestic requirements has a negative influence on workers, leading to dissatisfaction
and de-motivation, decreased output, and enhanced crash and burn (Galinsky & Stein,
1990, Benedict &Taylor, 1995).
5
Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
Saad, Samah and Juhdi (2008) carried out a study to understand the workers‟ attitude
towards job variables in educational institutes. Earlier research postulated that workers‟
attitude towards organizational variables had a strong impact on motivation levels. A
sample of 250 respondents working for educational institutes was selected. The
following 10 variables were chosen to calculate Standard of Organizational Life:
cooperation from management, job-family discrepancy, interaction with co-workers, self
sufficiency, influence on work, significance of task, tolerance for uncertainty,
decentralization, availability of technology and materials required, and self
management. These factors were employed as predictors leading to motivation. The
results showed that every independent variable singularly predicted motivation (Saad,
Samah & Juhdi, 2008).
3. Research Methods
The following research methods and techniques were employed in this study:
3.1 Method of Data Collection
Survey was conducted from employees in different organizations.
3.2 Sampling Technique
The convenience sampling technique was used
3.3 Sample Size
The sample size consists of 200 respondents.
3.4 Instrument of Data Collection
Instrument of data collection was questionnaire which comprised of structured
questions. Some questions were aimed at garnering employee perception for
procedural justice, while some others measured employee perception for distributive
justice; followed by questions related to demographics like age, gender, hierarchical
position and tenure in the organization.
6
Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
3.5 Empirical Research Model
Figure 3.5.1Research Model Developed
Age
Employee Perception for:
Gender
Status
Procedural Justice
Employee Perception for:
Distributive justice
Tenure
3.5.1 Variables studied
3.5.1.1 Employee Characteristics:
 Age
 Gender
 Status
 Tenure
3.5.1.2 Employee Perception for:
 Procedural Justice
 Distributive Justice
3.6 Statistical Technique
Independent sample T-Test is used to measure difference in perception of
employees for procedural justice and distributive justice due to different gender, and
ANOVA is used to measure difference in perception of employees for procedural justice
and distributive justice due to difference in age, difference in hieratical position in the
organization, difference in tenure(how long they have worked in the organization.
4. Results
4.1 Findings and Interpretation of Results
T-Test
7
Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
4.1.1 Group Statistics
Grnder
Procedural Justice
Male
N
Mean
Male
Std. Error Mean
122
3.1628
.73748
.06677
Female
Distributive Justice
Std. Deviation
78
2.9212
.90779
.10279
122
2.9192
.72912
.06601
78
3.0513
.93465
.10583
Female
4.1.2 Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
F
Procedural Justice
Equal variances assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig.
6.710
t
.010
Equal variances not
assumed
Distributive Justice
Equal variances assumed
7.774
.006
Equal variances not
assumed
df
2.062
198
1.970
139.845
-1.118
198
-1.059
135.520
4.1.2 Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed)
Procedural Justice
Distributive Justice
Std. Error
Difference
Mean Difference
Equal variances assumed
.041
.24152
.11714
Equal variances not assumed
.051
.24152
.12257
Equal variances assumed
.265
-.13208
.11819
Equal variances not assumed
.292
-.13208
.12473
4.1.2 Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Procedural Justice
Distributive Justice
Equal variances assumed
Upper
.01052
.47251
Equal variances not assumed
-.00081
.48385
Equal variances assumed
-.36514
.10099
Equal variances not assumed
-.37874
.11459
8
Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
4.1.1 Employees’ perception for procedural justice does not depend on gender
difference.
The value is 0.051 which is greater than 0.05 showing that the hypothesis is accepted
because it says that perception regarding procedural justice does not vary between both
genders.
4.1.2 Employees’ perception for distributive justice does not depend on gender
difference.
The value is 0.292 which is greater than 0.05 showing that the hypothesis is accepted
because it says perception regarding distributive justice does not differ in both genders.
One-way
4.1.3 ANOVA - AGE
Sum of Squares
Procedural Justice
Distributive Justice
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
3.845
4
.961
Within Groups
128.194
195
.657
Total
132.039
199
3.912
4
.978
Within Groups
128.508
195
.659
Total
132.420
199
Between Groups
4.1.3 ANOVA - AGE
F
Sig.
Procedural Justice
Between Groups
1.462
.215
Distributive Justice
Between Groups
1.484
.208
4.1.3 Employees’ perception for procedural justice does not depend on age
difference.
The value is 0.215 which is greater than 0.05 showing that the hypothesis is accepted
because it says that perception regarding procedural justice does not vary in age
groups.
4.1.4 Employees’ perception for distributive justice does not depend on age
difference.
The value is 0.208 which is greater than 0.05 showing that the hypothesis is accepted
because it says that perception regarding distributive justice does not vary in age
groups.
9
Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
One-way
4.1.4 ANOVA - STATUS
Sum of Squares
Procedural Justice
Distributive Justice
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
6.907
3
2.302
Within Groups
125.132
196
.638
Total
132.039
199
3.518
3
1.173
Within Groups
128.902
196
.658
Total
132.420
199
Between Groups
4.1.4 ANOVA - STATUS
F
Sig.
Procedural Justice
Between Groups
3.606
.014
Distributive Justice
Between Groups
1.783
.152
4.1.5 Employees’ perception for procedural justice does depend on status
(hierarchical level) difference in the organization.
The value is 0.014 which is less than 0.05 which shows that the hypothesis is rejected
because it says that perception regarding procedural justice does not vary according to
the status of the employees.
4.1.6 Employees’ perception for distributive justice does not depend on status
(hierarchical level) difference in the organization.
The value is 0.152 which is greater than 0.05 showing that the hypothesis is accepted
because it says that perception regarding distributive justice does not vary according to
the status of the employees.
One-way
4.1.5 ANOVA - TENURE
Sum of Squares
Procedural Justice
Distributive Justice
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
2.906
2
1.453
Within Groups
129.134
197
.656
Total
132.039
199
.848
2
.424
Within Groups
131.573
197
.668
Total
132.420
199
Between Groups
10
Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
4.1.5ANOVA - TENURE
F
Sig.
Procedural Justice
Between Groups
2.216
.112
Distributive Justice
Between Groups
.635
.531
4.1.7 Employees’ perception for procedural justice does not depend on tenure
(time spent in the organization).
The value is 0.112 which is greater than 0.05 showing that the hypothesis is accepted
because it says that perception regarding procedural justice does not vary with
according to the time spent in an organization.
4.1.8 Employee’s perception for distributive justice does not depend on tenure
(time spent in the organization).
The value is 0.531 which is greater than 0.05 showing that the hypothesis is accepted
because it says that perception regarding distributive justice does not vary with
according to the time spent in an organization.
4.2 Hypotheses Assessment Summary
Hypotheses
Reason
Result
H1: Employees‟ perception for Procedural justice is
independent of employees‟ age
H2: Employees‟ perception for Procedural justice is
independent of employees‟ gender
0.215
Accepted
0.051
Accepted
H3: Employees‟ perception for Procedural justice is
independent of employees‟ status
H4: Employees‟ perception for Procedural justice is
independent of employees‟ tenure
H5: Employees‟ perception for Distributive justice is
independent of employees‟ age
H6: Employees‟ perception for Distributive justice is
independent of employees‟ gender
0.014
Rejected
0.112
Accepted
0.208
Accepted
0.292
Accepted
H7: Employees‟ perception for Distributive justice is
independent of employees‟ status
H8: Employees‟ perception for Distributive justice is
independent of employees‟ tenure
0.152
Accepted
0.531
Accepted
11
Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
5. Conclusion, Discussions, Implications and Future Research
5.1 Conclusion
This research study provides evidence to suggest that employee perceptions related to
procedural and distributive justice is not affected to a significant degree by differences in
their demographic makeup. Variables like age, gender, status and tenure seem to have
little effect on their perceptual understanding and interpretation of procedural and
distributive justice in an organization.
It was seen that the only instance where a predictor had an effect on one of the
dependent variables was the case of employee status and procedural justice. There
appeared a dependency of employee perception based on their status inside the
organization, which colored their opinion concerning procedural justice. In all other
cases, no clear relationship emerged.
5.2 Discussion
Amongst the various observations that came through in this research, one was that in
many cases employees were not clearly aware of their own position or status within the
hierarchy of the organization. This could be due to lack of explicit communication from
the concerned departments, particularly HR.
Furthermore, what is pertinent to note in this study is that the results are partially
contradictory to the findings given by literature, which suggests that demographic
variables do have an influence on employee perceptions about organizational factors.
This could be due to several factors, one of which constitutes the unique cultural
differences in Pakistan. Also, no study has directly been carried out relating distributive
and procedural justice with demographics particularly. In that way, the findings become
credible and original.
5.3 Implications
This research study would be useful in particular to practitioners of HR, with respect to
the insight it provides into employee perceptions about distributive and procedural
justice. It would also be useful, in general, to managers and administrators in
understanding employee concerns and putting them to use in refining procedural and
distributive SOP‟s in organizations. Finally, it would also be beneficial for students and
academicians devoted to studying organizations and management.
5.4 Future Research
Further research in this area could be carried out with a larger and more representative
sample size, taking organizations from several domains. Also, variables other than the
ones used as predictors could be added, such as marital status, education/qualification
and even personality attributes of the employees, giving a psychographic dimension to
the research. In conclusion, one could say that a lot more needs to be done in order to
understand fully, the factors which influence employee perceptions in organizations
concerning distributive and procedural justice.
12
Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
References
Abdullah, A.C., Spickett, J.T., Rumchev, K.B. & Dhaliwal, S.S. 2009. “Assessing
Employees Perception on Health and Safety Management in Public Hospitals,
International Review of Business Research Papers”, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 54-72.
Caudron, S. 2003. “Rebuilding employee trust, Workforce Management”, vol. 82, no. 11,
pp. 124-128.
Conybear, J.A.C. “Efficiency Entitlements and Deservingness: Perspectives on
International Distributive Justice. Review of International Political Economy. Department
of Political Science”, 363 Schaeffer Hall, University of Iowa, Iowa.
Cropanzano, R. & Greenberg, J. 1997, “Progress in Organizational Justice: Tunneling
through the Maze, International Review of industrial and organizational psychology”.
Edgar, F. & Geare, A. 2004. “Employee Demographics in Human Resource
Management Research, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management”, vol.
12, no. 1, pp. 61-91.
Galinsky, E. & Stein, P.J. 1990. “The Impact of Human Resource Policies on
Employees: Balancing Work/Family Life, Journal of Family Issues”, vol. 11, no. 4, pp.
368–83.
Gerrard, M., Gibbsons, F. and Reis-Bergan, M. 1999. “Journal of the National Cancer
Institute” vol. 25, pp. 94-100.
Giuliano, L., Levine, D.I. & Leonard, J. 2006. “Do Race, Age, and Gender Differences
affect Manager-Employee Relations? An Analysis of Quits, Dismissals, and Promotions
at a Large Retail Firm.”
Greenhaus, J. & Beutell, N. 1985. “Sources of Conflict between Work and Family Roles.
Academy of Management Journal”, vol.10, pp. 76-88.
Harris, P. R, Griffin, D. W., & Murray, S. 2008. “Testing the Limits of Optimistic Bias:
Event and Person Moderators in a Multilevel Framework. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology”, vol. 95, no. 5, pp. 1225-1237.
Hendrik P., Henkens, D. & Schippers, J. “How do Employers Cope with an Ageing
Workforce? Views from Employers and Employees. Demographic Research”, vol. 32,
no. 22.
Kossek, E.E. & Ozeki, C. 1998. “Work-Family Conflict, Policies and the Job-Life
Satisfaction Relationship: A Review and Direction for Organizations' Behavior-Human
Resources Research. Journal of Applied Psychology”, vol. 83, pp. 139–49.
Krause, T. R., Hidley, l H. & Hodson, S. J. 1990. “The Behavior-Based Safety Process:
Managing Involvement for an Injury-Free Culture”, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Lewis, S., & Cooper, C. 1987. “Stress in Two-Earner Couples and Stages in the Life
Cycle, Journal of Occupational Psychology”, vol. 60, pp. 289–303.
Lind, E. A. & Tyler, T. R. 1988. “The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice”. New
York: Plenum.
Lundgren, R. & McMakin, A. 1998. “Risk Communication”, Columbus, Ohio: Battelle
Press.
Ngodo, O, E., 2008. “Procedural Justice and Trust: The Link in the Transformational
Leadership–Organizational Outcomes Relationshi. International Journal of Leadership
Studies”, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 82-100.
13
Proceedings of Global Business Research Conference
7-8 November 2013, Hotel Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN: 978-1-922069-35-1
Noecker, T. 2009. “An Analysis of Employee Perception of Industrial Hygiene
Equipment at Company XYZ. A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Science Degree In Risk Control”, The Graduate School,
University of Wisconsin-Stout.
Reina, D. S., & Reina, M. L. 2004. “Rebuilding Employee Trust during Change.
Behavioral Health Management”, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 28-30.
Riordan, C.M. & Shore, L.M. 1997. “Demographic Diversity and Employee Attitudes: An
Empirical Examination of Relational Demography within Work Units. Journal of Applied
Psychology”, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 342-358.
Robbins, Stephen P. 2004. “Principles of Management”, 9th Edition, Prentice Hall, p.
263.
Saad, H. S., Abu Samah, A. J., & Juhdi. N. 2008. “Employees‟ Perception on Quality
Work Life and Job Satisfaction in a Private Higher Learning Institution. International
Review of Business Research Papers”, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 23-34.
Saks, A.M. & Rotman, J.L. 2006. “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee
Engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology”, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 600-619.
Smith, B. 2005. “Hygiene in the Work Space. Occupational Health & Safety”, vol. 74, no.
10, pp. 46-50.
Sukirno & Qayyum, A. 2012. “An Empirical Analysis of Employee Motivation and the
Role of Demographics: the Banking Industry of Pakistan. Global Business and
Management Research: An International Journal”, vol. 4, no. 1.
Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. 1975. “Procedural Justice”. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Waclawski, J. & Church, A. H. (Eds.) 2002. “Organizational Development: A Data-driven
Approach to Organizational Change”. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wheatley, M., Tannenbaum, R., Griffin, P. Y. & Quade, K. 2003. “Organizational
Development at Work”. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
14