Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business
Vol. 1, Issue. 9, (pp.92- 98) September, October, 2011
Impact of Perceived Organizational Justice on Organizational
Commitment of Faculty: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan
Prof. Dr. Muhammad Ehsan Malik
Dean, Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences/Director, Institute of Business Administration (IBA)/Director
General, Gujranwala Campus, University of the Punjab (Pakistan)
Email: drmalikehsan@hotmail.com
Basharat Naeem
Lecturer at IBA, University of the Punjab, Quaid-e-Azam Campus, Lahore (Pakistan) & Ph.D. (Management Sciences)
Scholar at COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), Islamabad Campus (Pakistan),
Email: basharat.naeem1972@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Research in perceived organizational justice got paramount importance in business organizations context by
management researchers and psychologist for the last more than 35 years considering its empirically endorsed
impact on numerous workforce behaviors and attitudes such as job satisfaction, extra-role performance,
organizational commitment, job performance, motivation, trust and turnover intentions. However, scant
literature shed light on whether or not teachers’ fairness perceptions regarding rewards allocation, its
procedures and interpersonal treatment foster their organizational commitment particularly in higher education
setting. To this particular end, the researchers conducted survey research to explore what organizational justice
dimensions influence organizational commitment of the faculty taking into consideration their position.
Regression analysis of responses from 463 faculty members revealed that distributive and procedural justice
had significant positive impact on organizational commitment of junior faculty whereas senior faculty
experienced improved commitment on the provision of distributive justice only. Implications for academic
administrators and future researchers are presented.
Keywords:
Organizational Justice, Organizational Commitment, Faculty, Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs), Pakistan
INTRODUCTION
In today’s modern society, intense competition and rapid growth of economy changed the employees’ beat to
work which affects their mental and physical development at workplace. In order to understand the
organizational behavior, this is inevitable to address the question of how employee’s behaviors and attitudes
influenced by the organizational and individual psychological factors (Van Dick, 2004; Rhoades & Eisenberger,
2002). Organizational justice which primarily focuses on the fairness at workplace put stronger impact on
different attitudes of the employees like turnover intentions, absenteeism, role breadth, job satisfaction, job
performance, leader-member exchange, trust, leadership and organizational commitment (e.g. Bakhshi &
Kumar, 2009; Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2007; Hubbel & Chory-Assad, 2005; Byrne, 2005; Wat and Shaffer,
2005; Greenberg, 2004; Judge & Colquitt, 2004; Vermunt & Steensma, 2003; Boer et al., 2002; Colquitt et al.,
2001).
In the review of organizational justice, Greenberg (1990) notes that "social scientists have long recognized the
importance of the ideals of justice as a basic requirement for the effective functioning of organizations and the
personal satisfaction of the individuals they employ." Greenberg also declared the justice as the “first virtue of
social institutions”. Organizational justice had three broad dimensions e.g. distributive, procedural and
interactional justice (Martinez-tur et al., 2006; Yalmiz & Tasdan, 2009). Distributive justice, was known as the
first dimension of justice which appear in the literature, refers to “the fairness of outcomes an employee receives
such as pay and promotions (Moorman, 1991)”. Procedural justice was introduced by the Thibaut and Walker in
1975 while working in dispute resolution procedures and further defines by the Moormon (1991) as “the
fairness of the procedures used in determining employee outcomes” whereas interactional justice describes as
“the interpersonal treatment employees receive from decision makers and the adequacy with which the formal
decision-making procedures are explained” (Greenberg, 1990).
As stated above, numerous researches were conducted on organizational justice and work attitudes of the
employees. Most of these studies were conducted on western culture particularly in business context and so far
92
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business
Vol. 1, Issue. 9, (pp.92- 98) September, October, 2011
limited literature is available in South Asian context. So, the main purpose this research investigation was to
examine to what extent organizational justice dimensions have impact on organizational commitment of faculty
members, as critical human resource for sustainable competitive advantage, employed by public and private
sector higher education institutions in Pakistan.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Business performance is often associated with the employee’s commitment which is considered as precondition
cooperative behavior. Among numerous other factors which improve commitment, justice perception is
recognized as the most sensitive and valued factor considered by the employees. The concept of fairness and
justice is known as organizational justice and taken as explanatory factor in organizational environments
(Leventhal, 1976; Deutsch, 1975; Adams, 1965). Organizational justice can be defined as the employees’
perception to what extent they are treated fairly and honestly (Elovainio et al., 2005) and whether the process
and results obtained at workplace are fair or not (Hubbel & Chory-Assad, 2005). Literature reports multiple
facets of organizational justice namely distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice
(Cropanzano et al. 2001; Konovsky, 2000; Greenberg, 1990). Distributive justice, first justice construct, is
mainly concerned with the employee perception about the fairness of outcomes (Greenberg, 1987; 1990) such as
financial rewards received from their organization (Greenberg, 2006; Colquitt et al., 2006; Ramamoorthy &
Flood, 2004; Elovainio et al., 2004; Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002). In organizational settings, employee judge
the fairness and justice after evaluating different situations according to given criteria and compare it with the
standard rules (Colquitt et al., 2006; Alder & Ambrose, 2005; Hubbel & Chory-Assad, 2005).
Procedural justice mainly focuses on processes and methods through which outcome decision is made (Ding &
Lin, 2006; Farmer et al., 2003; Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997; Greenberg, 1990). This is employees’
perception about fairness in the rules and regulations which are used to make a decision that will lead to the
ultimate outcome (Ding & Lin, 2006; Byrne, 2005; DeConinck & Bachmann, 2005; Greenberg, 2004; Elovainio
et al., 2004; Aryee et al. 2002; Greenberg, 2001). Procedural justice consist of various model like control model
of procedural justice proposed the indirect relationship of employees and outcomes in the process of decisionmaking whereas process control refers to the employee’s voice during the process of decision making
(Hegtvedt, Clay-Warner, & Johnson, 2003) and help the employees to manipulate material outcomes (Price et
al., 2006; Ding & Lin, 2006). Leiter and Maslach (2009) noted in their study that there is relationship of control
with reward and fairness and facilitate the employees to work accordingly to achieve their needs and develop
sustaining work life. Interactional justice is considered as key aspect in workplace settings because of its
relationship with unfair and fair treatment (Martı´nez-Tur et al., 2006; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Frey,
1997). Afterward, literature proved two subcategory of interactional justice known as interpersonal and
informational justice and should considered as separately (Colquitt, 2001). Greenberg (1990) proposed two
specific type of interpersonal treatment; (1) informational justice who primarily focuses why the specific
outcome of an activity had come out in certain fashion, and (2) interpersonal justice provides the degree of
which employees were treated with dignity, politeness and respect by people.
Organizational commitment is an important aspect in management literature. It refers to the state in which
people sense loyalty with their respective organization, aligned themselves with organizational goals and value
it (Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2007; Fang, 2001). Fairness and justice offers opportunity to the employees to
feel sense of belonging which considered as significant interpreter in organizational commitment. Procedural
justice gives the “employees to consider that managerial and organizational decisions are legitimate and this
legitimacy promotes commitment of the employees to their organizations (Tallman, Phipps, & Matheson,
2009)”. Robbins et al. (2000) proved the reciprocal association among distributive justice and procedural justice
with organizational commitment. In another study, Lambert et al (2007) found that procedural justice and
distributive justice significantly contributed to employees’ organizational commitment. However, Griffin and
Hepburn (2005) reported that correctional officers at Arizona did not perceive any significant association among
organizational justice and organizational commitment. In Colquitt et al. (2001) meta-analytical review of
organizational justice literature, he observed that distributive and procedural justice were significant predictors
of organizational commitment. Later on Aryee, Budhwar, and Chen (2002) and Ramamoorthy and Flood (2004)
found that procedural and distributive justice were linked to higher level of organizational commitment.
As regards teachers, Zaman, Ali and Ali (2010) conducted a research on private school teachers of Pakistan and
concluded that distributive justice and procedural justice had positive impact on organizational commitment. In
another study, Bakhshi, Kumar and Rani (2009) reported positive relationship between distributive and
procedural justice with organizational commitment of medical college employees in India. Likewise, Ponnu and
93
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business
Vol. 1, Issue. 9, (pp.92- 98) September, October, 2011
Chuah (2010) investigated the relationship of justice and organizational commitment of the employees working
diverse organizations at Malaysia, and found that perceptions of procedural justice and distributive justice
positively but significantly explaining variance in organizational commitment. Consistent with the prior
findings, Najafi et al. (2011) also concluded that educational experts of different universities reported higher
commitment levels by the provision of organizational justice.
RESEARCH METHODS
Self-administered survey questionnaire was used to collect the data from the study participants. The detailed
methods and procedures are presented hereunder for addressing the following research question:
Research Question 1: Do perceived organizational justice dimensions such as distributive, procedural and
interactional justice influence organizational commitment of faculty?
Research Question 2: Does faculty position moderate the relationships between organizational justice
perceptions and organizational commitment?
Data was collected from five Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) accredited universities and
degree awarding institutes operating in Lahore (Pakistan). One of them was a public sector university
considered as one of the largest institution of higher learning in Pakistan. On the other hand, four universities
and institutes were operating in private sector. The study participants were the faculty members who were either
having the regular or contract employment status in these academic institutions. Seven hundred and fifty
questionnaires were distributed in December 2009 to February, 2010 among faculty members and after multiple
follow ups resulted in 467 (63 %) statistically usable questionnaires.
Organizational justice and its three dimensions such as distributive, procedural and interactional justice were
measured by using the scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993). Organizational commitment scale
consists of 6 items developed in 1991 (General Social Survey). These items were derived from Linclon and
Kalleberg’s (1990) American - Japanese work commitment study (cited in Marsden et al., 1993).The inter-item
consistency scores of distributive justice (α=0.84), procedural justice (α=0.90), interactional justice (α=0.93) and
organizational commitment (α=0.68) were found to be adequate for the analysis purpose. Five point Likert scale
was used to assess the perceptions of the faculty members whereby 1 refers to strongly disagree and 5 as
strongly agree. Respondents were also asked about their demographic profile such as gender, age, designation,
education and job experience, etc. Regression analyses were employed separately for Lecturer, Assistant
Professors, Associate Professors and Professor in public and private higher education institutions to testify the
research questions.
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Table 1 reflects the demographic characteristics of the faculty serving in higher education institutions (HEIs) of
Pakistan. Male respondents were in majority (66%). For age, forty three percent (202) faculty members were
between 31 to 44 years. As regard marital status, 69% faculty members were married. Most of the faulty held
Master degree (187) followed by M. Phil (172) and PhD (105). Of the respondents, about 53 percent had job
experience up to 5 years, 26 percent between 6 to 10 years, 09 percent between 11 to 15 years and 11 percent
more than 15 years. About 63 percent of the faculty (292) was working as Lecturer, 27 percent (124) as
Assistant Professor, 9 percent as Associate Professor and Professor. Sixty two percent (288) of the faculty was
serving in public sector and about 36 percent (166) in private sector HEIs of Pakistan.
Table 1: Demographic Profile of Respondents (N=467)
Characteristics
Frequency
%
Characteristics
Gender:
Marital Status:
Male
310
66
Married
Female
157
34
Unmarried
Missing
Missing
Age:
Education:
<25 years
34
07 Master degree
25-30 years
148
33 MS / M. Phil
31-44 years
202
43 PhD
> 44 years
72
15 Missing
Frequency
%
321
140
06
187
172
105
03
69
30
01
40
37
23
00
94
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business
Missing
Designation:
Lecturer
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor &
Professor
Missing
Type of HEI:
Public sector
Private sector
Missing
Vol. 1, Issue. 9, (pp.92- 98) September, October, 2011
11
02
Job Experience:
292
124
63
27
44
07
09
01
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
>15 years
Missing
288
166
13
62
36
02
249
119
44
49
06
53
26
09
11
01
Table # 2 shows the descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviations.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Study Constructs (N=467)
Study Variables
Mean
Distributive Justice (DJ)
3.78
Procedural Justice (PJ)
3.54
Interactive Justice (IJ)
Organizational Commitment (composite)
4.10
3.65
Std. Deviation
.90
.95
1.00
.71
The table # 3 is indicative of stepwise regression analyses for Lecturers. Organizational commitment was
regressed on three dimensions of justice such as distributive justice, procedural justice and interactive justice.
Distributive justice contributed 33 percent unique variance whereas procedural justice explained 4 percent
variability in organizational commitment. The results showed that distributive justice had relatively stronger
positive impact (β = .43, t = 7.57, p<0.001) on lecturers’ organizational commitment than procedural justice (β =
.24, t = 4.21, p<0.001).
Table # 03: Regression (Organizational Commitment) for Lecturers ____________________
Distributive Justice (DJ)
R2 Change
0.33
R2 Change β
(t-statistic)
β (t-statistic)
Procedural Justice (PJ)
0.43* (7.57)
0.04
0.24* (4.21)
Model F-statistic 83.25*
* Significant at 0.001 level: One-tailed
Results of regression analysis (table # 04) showed that distributive justice explained 20 percent (R 2 change =
0.20) variance in organizational commitment of Assistant Professors and had positive impact on it. However,
only 3 percent variance was explained by procedural justice (R 2 Change = 0.03) whereas no significant impact
was observed of interactive justice on organizational commitment. The results showed that distributive justice
had relatively stronger positive impact (β = .33, t = 3.43, p<0.001) on Assistant Professors organizational
commitment than procedural justice (β = .23, t = 2.30, p<0.05).
Table 04: Regression (Organizational Commitment) for Assistant Professors _____________
Distributive Justice (DJ)
0.20
R2 change
0.33* (3.43)
β (t-statistic) __________
Procedural Justice (PJ)
0.03
R2 Change β (t-statistic) Model F-statistic
* Significant at 0.001 level: One-tailed, ** Significant at 0.05 0.23** (2.30)
18.81*
level: One-tailed
95
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business
Vol. 1, Issue. 9, (pp.92- 98) September, October, 2011
Table # 05 depicts that only distributive justice accounted for 30 percent variance (R 2 change = 0.30, F=17.70*)
in organizational commitment of senior professors (Associate Professor and Professor). Interestingly neither
procedural justice nor interactive justice had significant impact on organizational commitment of the senior
faculty.
Table 05: Regression (Organizational Commitment) for Associate Professors & Professors
Distributive Justice (DJ) __________________________________________________________
0.30
R2 change β (t-statistic) Model F-statistic
0.55* (4.21)
* Significant at 0.001 level: One-tailed
17.70*
As regards moderating impact of faculty position on the relationship
between
organizational
justice dimensions on organizational commitment, it was observed that distributive justice had relatively greatest
impact on organizational commitment among senior faculty (β = .33), followed by lecturers (β = .43) and then by
assistant professors (β = .33). However the influence of procedural justice among lecturers (β = .24) and
assistant professors (β = .23) was not statistically different.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
According to the recent research endeavors (Najafi et al., 2011, Malik, Nawab, Naeem & Danish 2010; Park et
al, 2005), organizational commitment was observed to be one of the extensively studied topics in the
management literature. It seems pretty logical as the committed workforce particularly the faculty members
could perform effectively to develop the intellectual capital of the future leaders for any nation. This very fact
prompted the researchers to investigate what dimensions of organizational justice foster organizational
commitment among faculty of higher education institutions and whether or not these relationships are moderated
by faculty position. Based on the analyses, it can be concluded that distributive and procedural justice could
have their role in making faculty committed to their institutions. Interestingly, procedural justice did not act as
antecedent of organizational commitment. These study findings were consistent with the prior research that
distributive justice and procedural justice result into improve organizational commitment (e.g. Robbins et al.,
2000; Aryee, et al. 2002; Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2004; Lambert et al. 2007; Bakhshi et al. 2009; Zaman et al.
2010; Ponnu & Chuah (2010); Najafi et al. (2011). Only relationship between distributive justice and
organizational commitment was moderated by faculty position. As regards practical implications, lecturers and
assistant professors serving in higher education institutions could be made more committed by ensuring the
fairness in provision of rewards and its procedures by their respective institutions. However, commitment may
be fostered in senior faculty by ensuring the higher level of distributive justice. Future researchers, while
reviewing our recommendations, should take in to consideration that the current study does not provide
conclusive evidence as it followed exploratory research design. Another advice for researchers is to explore how
multiple dimensions of justice could have impact on other attitudinal and behavioral variables such as job
involvement, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, workplace spirituality, job performance and
turnover.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 2, pp 267-299), New York: Academic Press
Alder, G. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2005). Towards understanding fairness judgments associated with
computer performance monitoring: An integration of the feedback, justice, and monitoring research. Human
Resource Management Review, 15, 43-67.
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.
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.
Bakhshi A, Kumar K, Rani E (2009). Organizational justice perceptions as predictor of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Int. J. Bus. Manage., 4(9): 145-154
Boer, E. M. D., Bakker, A. B., Syroit, J. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2002). Unfairness at work as a predictor of
absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 181-197.
96
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Vol. 1, Issue. 9, (pp.92- 98) September, October, 2011
Boer, E. M. D., Bakker, A. B., Syroit, J. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2002). Unfairness at work as a predictor of
absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 181-197.
Byrne, Z. S. (2005). Fairness reduces the negative effects of organizational politics on turnover intentions,
citizenship behavior and job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 175-200.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-232.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Yee NG, K. (2001). Justice at the
Millennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative
theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 100,
110-127.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 386–400.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In
C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), Interactional review of industrial and organizational psychology, 317-372.
New York: Wiley.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics,
social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209.
DeConinck, J., & Bachmann, D. (2005). An analysis of turnover among retail buyers. Journal of Business
Research, 58, 874-882.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of
distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-150.
Ding, C. G., & Lin, C. P. (2006). Comparing the Effects of Determinants of Turnover Intentions Between
Taiwanese and U.S. Hospital Employees. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(4), 403-421.
Elovainio, M., Kivimaki, M., Steen, N., & Vahtera, J. (2004). Job decision latitude, organizational justice
and health: multilevel covariance structure analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 58, 1659-1669.
Elovainio, M., Van den Bos, K., Linna, A., Kivimaki, M., Ala-Mursula, L., Pentti, J., & Vahtera, J. (2005).
Combined effects of uncertainty and organizational justice on employee health: Testing the uncertainty
management model of fairness judgments among Finnish public sector employees. Social Science and
Medicine, 61(12), 2501-2512.
Fang, Y. (2001). Turnover propensity and its causes among Singapore nurses, an empirical study.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(5), 859–871.
Farmer, S., Beehr, T., & Love, K. (2003). Becoming an undercover police officer: A note on fairness
perceptions, behavior, and attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 373-387.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay
Raise Decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130.
Frey, F.M. (1997), “The management of justice through accounts: constructing acceptable justifications”,
unpublished PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16,
399-432.
Greenberg, J. (2001). Setting the Justice Agenda: Seven Unanswered Questions about What, Why, and
How. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 210-219.
Greenberg, J. (2004). Stress Fairness to Fare No Stress: Managing Workplace Stress by Promoting
Organizational Justice. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 352-365.
Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing Sleep Over Organizational Injustice: Attenuating Insomniac Reactions to
Underpayment Inequity With Supervisory Training in Interactional Justice. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91(1), 58–69.
Greenberg, J. 1987. Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the
ends? Journal of Applied Psychology 72, 55–61.
Hegtvedt, K. A., Clay-Warner, J., & Johnson, C. (2003). The Social Context of Responses to Injustice:
Considering the Indirect and Direct Effects of Group-Level Factors. Social Justice Research, 16(4), 343367.
Hubbel, A. P., & Chory-Assad, R. M. (2005). Motivating Factors: Perceptions of Justice and Their
Relationship with Managerial and Organizational Trust. Communication Studies, 56(1), 47-70.
Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational Justice and Stress: The Mediating Role of WorkFamily Conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 395-404.
Konovsky, M. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal
of Management, 26, 489–511.
97
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business
Vol. 1, Issue. 9, (pp.92- 98) September, October, 2011
33. Kürsad Yilmaz, Murat Tasdan, (2009) "Organizational citizenship and organizational justice in Turkish
primary schools", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 47 Iss: 1, pp.108 – 126
34. Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Griffin, M. L. (2007). The impact of distributive and procedural justice on
correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice,
35, 644-656.
35. Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2003). The impact of workfamily conflict on correctional staff job
satisfaction. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 35-51.
36. Leiter, M.P., & Maslach, C. (2009). Nurse turnover: the mediating role of burnout. Journal of Nursing
Management, 17, 331–339.
37. 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 (Vol. 9, pp. 91-131). New
York: Academic Press.
38. Malik, M. E., Nawab, S., Naeem, B., & Danish, R. Q. (2010). Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment of University Teachers in Public Sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Business and
Management Vol. 5 (6). 17 – 26.
39. Martínez-tur, V., Peiró, J.M., Ramos, J. & Moliner, C. (2006) Justice perceptions as predictors of customer
satisfaction: the impact of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36, 100–119.
40. Moorman, R. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviours: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
845-855.
41. Najafi, S., Noruzy, A., Azar, H. K., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Dalvand, M. R. (2011). Investigating the
relationship between organizational justice, psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical model. African Journal of Business
Management, Vol. 5(13), pp. 5241-5248.
42. 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.
43. Park, S., Henkin, A.B., & Egley, R. (2005). Teacher team commitment, teamwork, and trust: exploring
associations, Journal of Educational Administration, 43(5), 462-79.
44. Ponnu, C. H., Chuah, C. C. (2010). Organizational commitment, organizational justice and employee
turnover in Malaysia. African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4(13), pp. 2676-2692.
45. Price, K. H., Lavelle, J. J., Henley, A. B., Cocchiara, F. K., & Buchanan, F. R. (2006). Judging the fairness
of voice-based participation across multiple and interrelated stages of decision making. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 212-226.
46. Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2004). Gender and Employee Attitudes: The Role of Organizational
Justice Perceptions. British Journal of Management, 15, 247–258.
47. Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2004). Gender and Employee Attitudes: The Role of Organizational
Justice Perceptions. British Journal of Management, 15, 247–258.
48. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.
49. Robbins, T. L., Summers, T. P., & Miller, J. L. (2000). Intra- and inter-justice relationships: Assessing the
direction. Human Relations, 53(10), 1329-1355.
50. Tallman, R., Phipps, K., & Matheson, D. (2009). Justice perception in Medical Administrative Governance.
International Journal of Business Research, 9(7), 147-155.
51. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Van Dick, R. (2004). My job is my castle: identification in organizational contexts. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T.
Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 171–203).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
53. Vermunt, R., & Steensma, H. (2003). Physiological Relaxation: Stress Reduction Through Fair Treatment.
Social Justice Research, 16(2), 135-149.
54. Wat, D. dan Shaffer, M.A. 2005. Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational citizenship
behavior. Personnel Review. 34(4):406-422.
55. Zaman, G., Ali, N., & Ali, N. (2010). Impact of Organizational Justice on Employees Outcomes: An
Empirical Evidence. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 3 (1).
98