Revisiting the Interactive Effects of Distributive and Procedural Justice on Behaviors: A
Developing Country Perspective
Usman Raja
Goodman School of Business
Brock University, Canada
Email: uraja@brocku.ca; usmanraja@gmail.com
Rauf Ahmed Sheikh
Email: raufasheikh@yahoo.com
and
Muhammad Abbas
Faculty of Management Sciences
Riphah School of Leadership
Riphah International University
Islamabad, Pakistan
Email: Muhammad.Abbas@riphah.edu.pk
Revisiting the Interactive Effects of Distributive and Procedural Justice on Behaviors: A
Developing Country Perspective
Abstract
This study was conducted using self- and supervisory-reports (N=352) across diverse
samples of employees to examined the main effects of distributive and procedural justice on job
performance, OCBs, and creativity. We also examined the interactive effects of distributive and
procedural justice on these outcomes. Results suggested that distributive justice was a more
consistent and significant predictor of job outcomes as compared to procedural justice.
Moreover, we also found that the procedural justice was not a significant moderator of the
distributive justice-outcomes relationships. These results suggest that in under-developed
countries procedural fairness may not play any role in strengthening or weakening the effects of
distributive justice on OCBs, job performance, and creativity.
Key Words: Distributive and Procedural Justice, OCBs, Job Performance, Creativity, Under
Developed.
Revisiting the Interactive Effects of Distributive and Procedural Justice on behaviors: A
Developing Country Perspective
A vast amount of research, including several meta-analyses, has been conducted in the
domains of perceived organizational justice (Cohen-Charash, & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon,
Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Li, & Cropanzano, 2009; Shao, Rupp, Skarlicki, & Jones, 2013). In
the early investigations of organizational justice, distributive justice or perceived fairness of
decision outcomes was the main focus of research (Adams, 1965). However, later on, it became
evident that the individuals are not only concerned about the decision outcome but also about the
fairness of procedures used to make those decisions (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger &
Konovsky, 1989). According to Folger and Konovsky "distributive justice refers to the perceived
fairness of the amounts of compensation employees receive; procedural justice refers to the
perceived fairness of the means used to determine those amounts" (1989: 115).
Previous studies have examined the effects of distributive and procedural justice on a
variety of job outcomes such as job performance (Cohen-Charash, & Spector, 2001; Colquit et
al., 2001), OCBs (Cohen-Charash, & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng,
2001), creativity (Clark, & James, 1999), job stress (Elovainio, Kivimaki, & Helkama, 2001),
organizational commitment (Cohen-Charash, & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001), and
turnover intentions (Cohen-Charash, & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001). However, there has
remained some controversy on the relative importance of both types of fairness in predicting the
desirable outcomes.
For example, some researchers have argued that distributive justice is strongly related to
personal outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction) whereas procedural justice is strongly related to
systemic or organizationally-relevant outcomes (e.g., organizational commitment) (Fields et al.,
2000; Folger, & Konovsky, 1989). Other researchers consider procedural fairness to be a strong
predictor of all desirable outcomes than distributive justice. According to these scholars
procedural justice has larger contribution than distributive justice to predict the job outcomes
(Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; McFarline, & Sweeney, 1992). Some other researchers found
that both distributive and procedural justice had independent effects on both systemic and
personal outcomes (Folger, & Konovsky, 1989; Sweeney & McFarline, 1993). Yet, other
researchers found that distributive justice was a stronger predictor of both systemic outcomes
and personal outcomes than procedural justice (Reithel, Baltes, & Buddhavarapu, 2007; Sweeney
& McFarlin, 1993). More recently, the meta-analysis by Shao, Rupp, Skarlicki, and Jones (2013)
revealed cross-cultural differences in the relative impact of procedural and distributive justice in
predicting desirable work outcomes. These authors found that justice effects were strongest
among nations associated with individualism, feminism, uncertainty avoidance, and low power
distance.
Moreover, a handful of studies have examined the interactive effects of distributive and
procedural justices on workplace attitudes and behaviors. Again, the studies reveal inconsistent
findings for the interactive effects of both types of justice to predict various attitudes and
behaviors. For example, McFarlin and Sweeney (1992) found that procedural justice moderated
the relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment and supervisory
evaluation, however, it did not moderate for personal outcomes such as pay and job satisfaction.
Fields, Pang, and Chiu (2000) investigated the interactive effects of two justice types on job
satisfaction, intent to stay, and evaluation of supervision in Hong Kong. These authors found that
procedural justice had a large effect on evaluation of supervision whereas distributive justice had
a large effect on job satisfaction and intent to stay.
Greenberg (1987a) in a laboratory experiment found that the subjects considered medium
and high outcomes as fair regardless of the procedures used, however low outcomes were only
fair when they were based on a fair procedure. In a similar vein, Lowe and Vodanovich (1995)
using cross-sectional self-reports found that the interactive effect of both types of fairness was
not significant for satisfaction, however it was significant factor in predicting normative
commitment. Moreover, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found a relationship between distributive
justice and retaliation only under the conditions of low procedural justice. Tepper (2001) found
that the relationships between procedural justice and psychological distress were stronger when
distributive justice was low.
We argue that distributive and procedural justices both have independent effects on job
performance, creativity, and OCBs. They both are important in predicting job outcomes.
However, distributive justice is relatively more salient in predicting outcomes than procedural
justice and their combined effects will yield to insignificant results. For example, when
distributive fairness is high, procedural fairness will have no effect on the outcomes. In other
words, high or low procedural fairness will have no effect on outcomes when distributive justice
is high.
Brockner and Wiesenfeld (1996) urged future research to elucidate the conditions under
which the interactive effects of distributive- and procedural fairness is more pronounced or nonexistent. Given the lack of understanding on the relative importance of procedural and
distributive fairness in predicting important attitudes and behaviors particularly in the under
developed societies, the current study investigates the impact of distributive and procedural
justice on job performance, OCBs, and creativity. The study also examines the interactive effects
of distributive and procedural fairness in predicting these outcomes. Moreover, our study
examines these relationships in Pakistani context thereby providing insight into the boundary
conditions of procedural justice in an under developed economy where fairness in outcomes
(distributive fairness) may be relatively more important as compared to fairness in procedures
(procedural fairness).
Theory and Hypotheses
Justice Types and Job Outcomes
There is some debate on the relative importance of distributive and procedural justice in
predicting job outcomes. Some studies found that distributive justice is a more critical factor that
predicts important outcomes (Reithel, Baltes, & Buddhavarapu, 2007; Sweeney & McFarlin,
1993) whereas other studies found procedural justice to be an important factor that contributes
beyond distributive fairness (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; McFarline, & Sweeney, 1992).
Recently a meta-analysis by Shao, Rupp, Skarlicki, and Jones (2013) found cross-cultural
differences in the relative impact of procedural and distributive justice in predicting desirable
work outcomes.
Among earlier studies Alexander and Ruderman (1987) found that procedural justice had
larger contribution than distributive justice to job satisfaction, evaluation of supervision,
conflict/harmony, and trust in management. Some researchers have argued that distributive
justice is strongly related to personal outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction) whereas procedural justice
is strongly related to systemic outcomes (e.g., organizational commitment) (Fields et al., 2000;
Folger, & Konovsky, 1989).
Some other researchers found that both distributive and procedural justice had
independent effects on both systemic and personal outcomes (Folger, & Konovsky, 1989;
Sweeney & McFarline, 1993). Yet, other researchers found that distributive justice was a
stronger predictor of both systemic outcomes and personal outcomes than procedural justice
(Reithel et al., 2007; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993). Leung, Smith, Wang, and Sun (1996)
examined the effects of procedural and distributive justice on job satisfaction among Chinese
worker and found that procedural justice was strongly related to job satisfaction than distributive
justice. Yoon (1996) conducted a similar study among Korean workers and found that procedural
justice was a stronger predictor of job satisfaction as compared to distributive justice.
Rahim, Magner, Antonioni and Rahman (2001) conducted a survey among U.S and
Bangladeshi employees who have different cultural orientations with regard to power distance
and collectivism-individualism. These authors found that the impact of distributive and
procedural justice on organizational commitment, and turnover intentions were almost identical.
However, some other studies have shown contradictory evidence on the impact of two
types of justices on job outcomes. For example, Pillai, Williams, and Tan (2001) conducted a
cross cultural study and found that, in Hong Kong and Chinese samples, it was only distributive
justice that was related to trust. These authors also found that procedural justice played a more
important role than distributive justice in predicting satisfaction, commitment, and trust in U.S.
samples whereas distributive justice played relatively more important role in predicting these
outcomes in Indian samples. Moreover, in another study Pillai, Scandura, and Williams (1999)
found that distributive justice rather than procedural justice predicted job satisfaction in an
Indian sample
According to Mcfarlin and Sweeney (1992) distributive justice was found to be more
important predictor of pay satisfaction and job satisfaction as compared to procedural justice,
whereas procedural justice was more important predictor of organizational commitment and
subordinate’s evaluation of supervisor. Harvey and Haines (2005) found that procedural justice
predicted both job satisfaction and organizational commitment whereas distributive justice
predicted job satisfaction only. Similarly, Lambard, Hogan, and Griffin (2007) conducted a study
on correctional staff and found that both distributive and procedural significantly influenced
organizational commitment, however the effects of procedural justice were much larger than
distributive justice. They also found that only distributive justice had a significant impact on job
stress. In addition, procedural justice, but not distributive justice, had a significant effect on job
satisfaction.
Colquitt et al. (2001) in their meta-analytic study found that procedural justice was
strongly and significantly related to OCBs and job performance whereas distributive justice had
a significant impact on OCBs only. Li and Cropanzano (2009) conducted a meta-analytic study
on distributive and procedural justice perceptions and job outcomes such as affective
commitment, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and trust. These authors found that both
procedural and distributive justice perceptions were related significantly to job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, trust, and turnover intentions in East Asian culture. They also found
that these justice perceptions tended to be more strongly related to job outcomes in North
America as compared to East Asia.
Lam et al. (2002) examined the effects of procedural justice and distributive justice on
job satisfaction, absenteeism, and job performance among U.S and Hong Kong managers. The
authors found that the impact of both justice types was stronger for individuals with low (vs.
high) power distance values. Further, Brockner et al. (2001) examined the moderating role of
power distance in the relationship between procedural justice and organizational commitment
among Chinese, U.S, Mexican, Hong Kong, and German respondents. These authors found that
the association between procedural justice and organizational commitment was stronger for
individuals with low (vs. high) power distance values.
Past research demonstrates that organizational justice research is important across
different nations and regions. However, almost all of the cross-cultural studies including the
meta-analyses attempt to explain the differences in justice perceptions using cultural lenses
particular the most familiar Hofstede’s national cultural dimensions (Brockner et al., 2001;
Fischer & Smith, 2003; Li & Cropanzano, 2009; Morris, & Leung, 2000; Murphy-Berman &
Berman, 2002; Pillai et al., 2001; Reithel, Baltes, & Buddhavarapu, 2007; Shao et al., 2013).
Very little progress has been made to examine the impact of justice perceptions using
perspectives other than culture such as political and socio-economic factors. That said,
multinationals need to understand how the two types of fairness perceptions affect employees’
behaviors in economically weak and under developed countries (White, Tansky, & Baik, 1995).
Although many studies have found the differences in the relative salience of justice types
in predicting job outcomes, some researchers assert that procedural justice concerns are
pervasive across diverse societal and cultural settings (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, Boeckmann,
Smith, & Huo, 1997; White, Tansky, & Baik, 1995). This contradictory evidence suggests the
need to replicate these findings in other settings particularly in developing countries. In
developing economies, individuals may be more sensitive towards fairness of outcome
distribution as compared to the fairness of the procedures used. In developing economies where
per capital income is low and unemployment rate is high, the rewards become more important.
Studies have found that the voluntary turnover rates decrease under high unemployment
conditions (Banerjee & Gaston, 2004; Gerhart, 1990). Therefore, procedural justice in a
developing economy like Pakistan may not be as salient as distributive justice.
Hypotheses 1a: Distributive justice will be positively related to job performance, OCBs,
and creativity
Hypotheses 1b: Distributive justice will be positively related to job performance, OCBs,
and creativity
Interactive Effects of Distributive and Procedural Justice
There are inconsistent findings regarding the interactive effects of distributive and
procedural justice on various job outcomes. For example, McFarlin and Sweeney (1992) in a
field study reported a significant interaction between distributive and procedural justice only for
organizational commitment and evaluation of supervisor. The interactive effects were
insignificant for personal outcomes such as pay and job satisfaction.
Fields, Pang, and Chiu (2000) investigated the interactive effects of two justice types on
job satisfaction, intent to stay, and evaluation of supervision in Hong Kong. These authors found
that procedural justice moderated the effects of distributive justice on job satisfaction and intent
to stay but not on evaluation of supervision. In a laboratory experiment, Greenberg (1987a)
found that medium and high outcomes were fair regardless of the procedure used, however low
outcomes were only fair when they were based on a fair procedure.
Based on these ideas, Lowe and Vodanovich (1995) conducted a field study using crosssectional self-reports of non-faculty employee and found that the interaction effect of PJ and DJ
was not significant for satisfaction, however, it was a significant factor in the prediction of
normative commitment. Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found a relationship between distributive
justice and retaliation only under the conditions of low procedural justice. Tepper (2001) found
that the relationships between procedural justice and psychological distress were stronger when
distributive justice was low. Moreover, Harvey and Haines (2005) found that the interactive
effects of procedural and distributive justice were significant for job satisfaction but not for
organizational commitment.
Furthermore, Lowe and Vodanovich (1995) argue that the inconsistent appearance of
interaction effects between procedural and distributive justice can be attributed to several
reasons. These authors observed that the interaction effects are more likely to appear in
experimental designs because of the increased control and precision of measurement offered in
laboratory settings. The authors also argued that the interaction effects may appear as a function
of the type of outcome which is measured.
This study attempts to expand the international perspective on the differential effects of
distributive and procedural justice. The context of the current study differs from most of the
developed countries of North America and Europe. Pakistan is a developing country that has a
low per capita income, high rates of unemployment and high levels of poverty (OECD, 2013).
Moreover, the recent waves of terrorism make the socio-economic situation more worst. In such
situations, employees are expected to be sensitive towards the fair distribution of outcome
rewards as compared to the fairness of the procedures used to distribute those rewards.
Conditions where unemployment and poverty rates are very high and money is a major
motivator, individuals may be more concerned about the outcome fairness and less concerned
about the procedural fairness.
From a socio-economic standpoint if we draw from Maslow’s (1954) need-gratification
theory which postulates that higher needs will be salient as lower needs are gratified. Studies
suggest that lower needs are less likely to predict happiness in rich countries than in poor
countries (Veenhoven, 1991; Veenhoven & Ehrhardt, 1995). In a study, Adigun and Stephenson
(1992) found that Nigerian workers were more motivated by extrinsic job factors such as pay,
fringe benefits, and working conditions whereas British workers were motivated more by
intrinsic job factors such as achievement and recognition.
According to Inglehart (1997: 31), in economically developed countries, survival is taken
for granted by the inhabitants. Such societies have experienced a gradual but phenomenal value
change in the way of economic development. As a result, values related to economic
achievement have become less salient than values related to enhancing self-expression
(Inglehart, 1997, p. 33). Furthermore, in developed economies, such as U.S, the emphasis has
shifted from economic goals of material well-being towards more humanistic goals of selfactualization (Inglehart, 1990). Therefore, it is possible that employees in developed countries
may be more concerned about the aspects of procedural fairness because they take survival for
granted and are relatively less concerned about the outcome fairness. In contrast, employees in
poor countries may be motivated more by the outcome fairness and relatively less concerned
about the procedural fairness because their lower level needs are still salient than high level
needs.
In addition, Pakistan is among those countries which are not fully developed in terms of
their social security system (Huang & Van De Vliert, 2003; Mahmood, & Nasir, 2008). It is said
that fully developed social security system serves as a tool to secure the fulfillment of basic
human needs (Taylor-Gooby, 1991). A good social security system may cause a shift in social
values towards an emphasis on autonomy and self-expression (Doyal & Gough, 1984; Huang &
Van De Vliert, 2003; Plant, 1985; Weale, 1983). Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that in
developing countries like Pakistan where appropriate social security systems are not available,
employees may place more emphasis on distributive fairness as compared to procedural fairness.
Recently, Zapata-Phelan, Colquitt, Scott, and Livingston (2009), in an experimental and a
field study, found that procedural justice was strongly related to intrinsic motivation in both
studies. In developing and collectivistic societies the economic and social security is often
considered more important to life than freedom and control in the workplace (Kanungo, 1990).
Employees in societies which are high on collectivism and low on social security are more likely
to place great emphasis on extrinsic aspects of the work environment as compared to workers in
societies which are individualistic and where proper social security systems are in place
(Hofstede, 1991; Huang & Van De Vliert, 2003).
According to recent human development index (HDR, 2013) Pakistan ranks 146 of 186
countries in human development in the category of underdeveloped countries. Human
Development Index is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of
living and quality of life for countries worldwide. Individuals in countries which are highly
individualistic and have better social security systems tend to attach more value to high-order
needs than people in collectivistic societies, because they are able to fulfill their basic needs
(Alpander & Carter, 1995; Nevis, 1983; Taylor-Gooby, 1991). Social psychologists argue that
both socio-economic and cultural factors are responsible for shaping people’s value and attitudes
in societies. These two factors can simultaneously explain the cross-national differences in
people’s values, attitudes, and behaviors (e.g., Arrindell et al., 1997; Inglehart, 1997; Oishi et al.,
1999; also see Huang & Van De Vliert, 2003). Even, social security alone is sufficient to shift
people’s values towards self-expression and enabling them to value intrinsic aspects instead of
extrinsic aspects of work and life (Huang & Van De Vliert, 2003). Therefore, we argue that the
effects of distributive justice will be more salient in predicting OCB, job performance, and
creativity. Individuals who perceive the distribution of rewards to be fair will exhibit high
performance, OCBs, and creativity regardless of whether procedures are fair or not.
Hypotheses 2a: There will be no significant interactive effects of distributive and
procedural justice on job performance.
Hypotheses 2b: There will be no significant interactive effects of distributive and
procedural justice on OCBs.
Hypotheses 2c: There will be no significant interactive effects of distributive and
procedural justice on creativity.
Methods
Sample and Procedures
The data was collected through onsite administration of surveys distributed among
employees working in a variety of organizations in the Punjab province of Pakistan. Personal and
professional contacts were used to gain access to these sites. Procedural and distributive justice
were measured using self-reports and job performance, creativity, and OCBs were measured
using supervisory-reports. Total of 600 distributed questionnaires yielded 400 returns for a response
rate of 67%. After removing incomplete questionnaires and ones with missing peer-reports, 352
complete useable pairs of responses resulted in an effective response rate of 59%. A cover letter
explaining the purpose and scope of the study assured respondents of strict anonymity. Participation
in the study was voluntary. Each respondent filled the self-report of the questionnaire and returned
directly to the researcher. The immediate supervisor of each respondent rated his or her
performance, OCB, and creativity. Both the respondent and the supervisor did not have access to
each other’s responses. Codes were assigned to the self- and supervisor-report surveys for
pairing of the received responses.
Measures
Since English is the official language of correspondence in all offices and the language of
instruction for all high school and university education in Pakistan, we administered the
questionnaires in English. Previous studies conducted in Pakistan have also used English
versions of questionnaires (e.g., Abbas et al., 2012; Raja & Johns, 2010; Raja, Johns, &
Ntalianis, 2004). A five point-likert scale with anchors ranging from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5
= ‘strongly agree’ was used to obtain the responses. Higher response on the scale represented
high level on that construct.
Organizational Justice. Distributive and procedural justice types were measured using
the scale developed by Colquit (2001). The scale contained 4 questions for distributive justice
and 7 questions for procedural justice. The reliability of the distributive justice scale was .91 and
for that of procedural justice was .78.
Job Performance and OCB. Performance and citizenship behaviors were tapped using
peer reports to the 21 item scale developed by William and Anderson (1991). Seven items
measured performance with reliability of .77 and 14 items tapped OCB with reliability of .78.
Creativity. Creativity was measured using peer reports to the 3-item scale developed by
Oldham and Cummings (1996). The reliability for this scale was .91.
Control Variables. One-way ANOVA revealed that there were significant differences
across organizations and gender in OCBs, job performance, and creativity. Therefore, we
controlled for the effects of organizations and gender. We created dummy variables to control for
effects of organizations.
Results
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations among study variables.
-------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
-------------------------------Table 2 shows the main and interactive effects of distributive justice and procedural
justice on all behavioral outcomes. We ran main and moderated regression analyses using the
procedures recommended by Cohen, Cohen, West and Aiken (2003). In the first step, we entered
four types of organization and gender as control variables. In step 2, the centered terms for
procedural and distributive justice were entered. We then entered the interaction term
(procedural justice x distributive justice) in the third step, which if significant confirmed
moderation. As shown in Table 2 (step 2) procedural justice was significantly related to OCB (β
= .14, p <.05) and Creativity (β = .15, p <.05). However, it was not related to job performance (β
= .06, ns). Distributive justice was significantly related to OCBs (β = .22, p <.001), job
performance (β = .28, p <.001), and creativity (β = .15, p <.05). As shown in Table 2 (step 3)
the interaction term (Procedural Justice x Distributive Justice) was insignificant across all
outcomes suggesting that procedural justice does not moderate the relationship between
distributive justice and behavioral outcomes. Moreover, the strength and significance of beta
values suggest that distributive justice was more strongly related to all outcomes than procedural
justice.
-------------------------------Insert Table 2 about Here
--------------------------------
Discussion
The findings of the current study provide an extended view on the controversies and
discussions revolving around organizational justice theory. The current study extends the
literature on justice by exploring the impact of distributive and procedural justice on behavioral
outcomes such as OCBs, job performance, and creativity in an under-developed country.
Our findings clearly suggest that both distributive and interactional justice had a positive
impact on OCBs, and creativity in Pakistan. Individuals who perceived high levels of distributive
and procedural justice demonstrated high citizenship behaviors and creativity. We also found
that only distributive justice had a positive effect on in-role performance and procedural justice,
unfortunately, was not related to in-role performance. Moreover, distributive justice had
relatively stronger effects on all outcomes than procedural fairness. These findings support our
initial assertion that individuals in under developed economies primarily are concerned with
fairness in distribution of rewards. Procedural justice may matter for certain outcomes such as
OCBs and creativity however, these behavioral outcomes are more intrinsic in nature as
compared to job performance, which is likely more tightly related to extrinsic aspects of fairness.
Moreover, we found that procedural fairness did not moderate the relationship between
distributive justice and the three job outcomes. Our finding clearly supports the assertion that in
under-developed economies individuals may not bother about fairness of the procedures if the
distribution of rewards is fair. Since Pakistan has a very low per capital income, high
unemployment and poverty rates (OECD, 2013) and relatively poor social security system
(Huang & Van De Vliert, 2003; Mahmood, & Nasir, 2008), the basic needs are not fully
satisfied. Such societies are more likely to place great emphasis on extrinsic aspects of work
environment (Huang & Van De Vliert, 2003). A good security system serves as a tool to secure
the fulfillment of basic human needs (Taylor-Gooby, 1991) and it may cause shift in social
values towards an emphasis on autonomy and self-expression (Huang & Van De Vliert, 2003;
Doyal & Gough, 1984; Plant, 1985; Weale, 1983).
Related to the saliency of needs and their capacity to predict happiness, studies suggest
that higher needs will be salient as lower needs are gratified (Maslow, 1954) and lower needs are
less likely to predict happiness in rich countries (Veenhoven, 1991; Veenhoven & Ehrhardt,
1995) where survival is taken for granted (Inglehart, 1997) and individuals are more inclined
towards self-actualization (Ihglehart, 1990). In contrast, among the developing and collectivist
societies, economic and social security is often considered more important to life than freedom
and control in the workplace (Kanungo, 1990). Therefore, in an under-developed society like
Pakistan individuals may place less relatively emphasis on procedural fairness and more
emphasis on distributive fairness. As a result, procedural fairness may be less salient in
influencing the job outcomes when distribution of rewards is fair.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
This study is not without limitations. First limitation has to do with the cross-sectional
nature of the data. Second, the insignificant interactions do not suggest whether procedural or
distributive justice will have a null effect. However, based on the extant theory, main effects of
both types of justice found in this study and the context in which the study is conducted, we
believe that the null effects will hold for procedural fairness.
Future research may replicate the relative effects of both types of justice in other underdeveloped economies. Since the focus of current study was on behavioral outcomes of
organizational justice, future studies may include attitudinal outcomes such as job satisfaction
and organizational commitment.
Conclusion
Although previous research has very significant contributions in provided an
understanding of the organizational justice phenomenon, recent studies suggest extending this
theory across nations to draw its boundary conditions (Shao et al., 2013). The current study
extends the organizational justice literature by studying the impact of distributive and procedural
justice on behavioral outcomes such as job performance, OCB, and creativity in an underdeveloped country. Nevertheless, more research is required to examine the relative effect of
perceived organizational justice from socio-economic and cultural perspectives.
References
Abbas, M., Raja, U., Darr, W., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2012). Combined effects of
perceived politics and psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and
performance. Journal of Management. DOI: 10.1177/0149206312455243
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology, 2, 267-299. New York: Academic Press.
Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 177-198.
Alpander, G.G. & Carter, K.D. (1995). Strategic multinational intra-company differences
in employee motivation. In: T. Jackson, ed. Cross-cultural management, Ed. Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann, pp. 97-109.
Arrindell, W. A., Hatzichristou, C., Wensink, J., Rosenberg, E., Van Twillert, B.,
Stedema, J., & Meijer, D. (1997). Dimensions of national culture as predictors of cross-national
differences in subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 37–
53.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship
between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 267–285.
Banerjee, D., & Gaston, N. (2004). Labour market signaling and job turnover revisited.
Labour Economics, 11, 599–622.
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X.,
Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. (2001). Cultural and
procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300-315.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining
reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin,
120, 189-208.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct
validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, k. Y. (2001). Justice at
the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-45.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality:
Deriving theoretically based moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 100, 110–127.
Clark, K., & James, K. (1999). Justice and positive and negative creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 12(4), 311-320.
Fields, D., Pang, M., & Chiu, C. (2000). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors
of employee outcomes in Hong Kong. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 547-562.
Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1984). A theory of human needs. Critical Social Policy, 4(10), 638.
Elovainio, M., Kivimaki, M., & Helkama, K. (2001). Organizational justice evaluations,
job control, and occupational strain. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 418-424.
Fischer, R., & Smith, P. B. (2003). Reward Allocation and Culture A Meta-Analysis.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 251-268.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on
reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 851-866.
Gerhart, B. (1990). Voluntary turnover and alternative job opportunities. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 467-478
Greenberg, J. (1987a). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the
means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61.
Greenberg, J. (1987b). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of
Management Review, 12, 9-22.
Harvey, S., & Haines Iii, V. Y. (2005). Employer treatment of employees during a
community crisis: The role of procedural and distributive justice. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 20, 53-68.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill:
London.
Huang, X., & Van De Vliert, E. (2003). Where intrinsic job satisfaction fails to work:
National moderators of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 159-179.
Human Development Report (2013). “The rise of the South-Human Profess in a Diverse
World”. HDRO (Human Development Report Office) United Nations Development Program,
pp. 144-147. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2013/. Retrieved 28 March 2013
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton University
Press.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and
political change in 43 societies (Vol. 19). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kanungo, R. N. (1990). Culture and work alienation western models and eastern realities.
International Journal of Psychology, 25, 795-812.
Lam, S., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational
justice and employee work outcomes: A cross national study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23, 1-18.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Griffin, M. L. (2007). Impact of Distributive and
Procedural Justice on Correctional Staff Job Stress, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational
Commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 644-656.
Li, A., & Cropanzano, R. (2009). Do East Asians Respond More/Less Strongly to
Organizational Justice Than North Americans? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management
Studies, 46, 787-805.
Leung, K., Smith, P. B., Wang, Z., & Sun, H. (1996). Job satisfaction in joint venture
hotels in China: An organizational justice analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 27,
947-963.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New
York: Plenum.
Lowe, R. H., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1995). A field study of distributive and procedural
justice as predictors of satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 1, 99-114.
Mahmood, N., & Nasir, Z. M. (2008). Pension and social security schemes in Pakistan:
Some policy options (No. 22211). East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
Maslow, Abraham, H. (1954). Motivation and personality, New York, Harper.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as
predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 35, 626-637.
Morris, M., & Leung, K. (2000). Justice for all? Progress in research on cultural variation
in the psychology of distributive and procedural justice. Applied Psychology, 49, 100-132.
Nevis, E. C. (1983). Using an American perspective in understanding another culture:
Toward a hierarchy of needs for the People's Republic of China. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 19, 249-264.
OECD (2013), OECD Factbook (2013): Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics,
OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/factbook-2013-en
Oishi, S., Diener, E. F., Lucas, R. E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in
predictors of life satisfaction: perspectives from needs and values. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 980–990.
Oldham, G. R. & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.
Pillai, R., Williams, E. S., & Tan, J. J. (2001). Are the scales tipped in favor of procedural
or distributive justice? An investigation the U.S., India, Germany and Hong Kong (China).
International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 312-332.
Plant, R. (1985). The very idea of a welfare state. In P. Bean, J. Ferris, & D. Whynes
(Eds.), In Defence of welfare (pp. 3–30). London: Tavistock.
Raja, U. & Johns, G. (2010). The joint effects of personality and job scope on in-role
performance, citizenship behaviors, and creativity. Human Relations, 63, 981-1005.
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F., (2004). The impact of personality on psychological
Contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350-367.
Rahim, M. A., Magner, N. R., Antonioni, D., & Rahman, S. (2001). Do justice
relationships with organization directed reactions differ across U.S. and Bangladesh employees?
International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 333-349.
Reithel, S. M., Baltes, B. B., & Buddhavarapu, S. (2007). Cultural Differences in
Distributive and Procedural Justice Does a Two-factor Model Fit for Hong Kong Employees?.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7, 61-76.
Shao, R., Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., & Jones, K. S. (2013). Employee Justice across
Cultures: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Management, 39, 263-301.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers' evaluation of the "ends" and the
"means": An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23-40.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1991). Social change, social welfare and social science. New York:
Harvester Weatsheaf.
Tepper, B. J. (2001). Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests of main and
interactive effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 197-215.
Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a
diverse society (p. 176). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Veenhoven, R. (1991). Is Happiness Relative? Social Indicators Research, 24, 1-34.
Veenhoven, R. & Ehrhardt, J. (1995). The Cross-National Pattern of Happiness: Test of
Predictions Implied in Three Theories of Happines. Social Indicators Research, 43, 33-86.
Weale, A. (1983). Political theory and social policy. London: Macmillan.
White, M. M., Tansky, J. A., & Baik, K. (1995). Linking culture and perceptions of
justice: A comparison of students in Virginia and South Korea. Psychological Reports, 77, 11031112.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment
as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,
601-617.
Yoon, J. K. (1996). Fairness issues and job satisfaction among Korean employees: The
significance of status and procedural justice in work orientation. Social Justice Research, 9, 121143.
Zapata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & Livingston, B. (2009). Procedural
justice, interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 93-105.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliabilities
Mean
S.D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. O1
.25
.43
--
2. O2
.06
.24
-.14**
--
3. O3
.06
.24
-.14**
-.06
--
4. O4
.06
.23
-.14**
-.06
-.06
--
5. Gender
1.06
.24
-.15**
-.02
-.06
-.06
--
6. Procedural Justice
2.75
.82
-.26**
.06
-.12*
.04
.05
(.78)
7. Distributive Justice
3.04
1.16
-.36**
.11*
-.04
-.10†
.06
.54**
(.91)
8. OCB
3.69
.53
-.09†
.13**
-.08
-.09†
-.13*
.25**
.30**
(.78)
9. Performance
4.12
.58
-.09†
.15**
-.16**
-.15**
.07
.22**
.34**
.67**
(.77)
10. Creativity
4.82
1.27
-.07
.17**
.02
.00
-.02
.22**
.22**
.49**
.42**
10
(.88)
Note. N = 352; Cronbach’s alphas presented in parenthesis; O1, O2, O3, and O4 are dummy variables for organization.
* p < .05
** p < .01
Table 2
Results of Main and Moderated Regressions Analysis
OCB
β
Job Performance
∆R²
β
∆R²
Creativity
β
∆R²
Step 1
O1
-.13*
-.13*
-.05
O2
.08
.09
.15**
O3
-.10
-.16**
.03
O4
-.12*
-.17***
.00
Gender
-.16**
.06***
.05
.08***
-.03
.03†
Step 2
Procedural Justice (A)
.14*
.06
.15*
Distributive Justice (B)
.22***
.08***
.28***
.08***
.15*
.06***
-.04
.00
.05
.00
-.00
.00
Step 3
AxB
Note. N = 352; Gender was coded as “1” for male and “2” for female; O1, O2, O3, and O4 are
dummy variables for organization.
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001