Organizational Justice and Employee Work Attitudes: The Federal Case

Organizational Justice and Employee Work Attitudes: The Federal Case

The American Review of Public Administration 41(2) 185–204 © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0275074010373275 http://arp.sagepub.com

Sungjoo Choi1

Abstract Organizational scientists have claimed that organizational justice is an essential requirement for effective organizational management. Perceived justice in the organization is predicted to influence employees’ attitudes toward their job and workplace significantly. This study explores how perceived organizational justice is related to employees’ work-related attitudes including job satisfaction, trust toward their supervisors and management, and intention to leave their agency. It also examines how gender differences affect these relationships. This study uses the 2005 Merit System Protection Board Survey to measure three types of organizational justice—distributive, procedural, and interpersonal—and tests the relationships using hierarchical regressions. The results indicate that higher levels of three types of organizational justice are positively related to job satisfaction and trust in supervisor and management, whereas they are negatively associated with turnover intentions of employees. Distributive justice is the one most strongly associated with job satisfaction, trust in management, and turnover intention of employees among three attributes of organizational justice. Women show higher levels of trust in management than men when they perceive procedural justice, whereas men show higher levels of trust than women when they perceive distributive and interpersonal justice. Keywords organizational justice, turnover intention, job satisfaction, trust

Introduction In recent years, as “baby boomers” have begun to retire there has been much discussion of a “human capital crisis” in government because of these massive retirement numbers and the resulting recruitment challenges involved in replacing this workforce (Thompson & Seidner, 2009). In 2006, the Office of Personnel Management reported that approximately 60% of federal employees would be eligible for retirement within the next 10 years and predicted that 40% would actually retire (Office of Personnel Management, 2006). The Government Accountability Office meanwhile 1

Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA

Corresponding Author: Sungjoo Choi, Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastain Rd, Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA Email: [email protected]

186

The American Review of Public Administration 41(2)

raised concerns about the challenges the government faced in recruiting and hiring qualified candidates and retaining them to avoid losing institutional knowledge. As a consequence, how to make government better able to retain employees has been an increasingly important concern in contemporary organizational management. Considerable research on organizational management indicates that employees’ perception of organizational justice is an important predictor of employees’ positive work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, trust in management and leadership, and organizational commitment) that may contribute to retaining them in their organization (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007; Greenberg, 1990). The perception of organizational justice can help predict and control employees’ work-related behaviors and maintain high moral and ethical standards in their workplace, resulting in enhanced organizational commitment and trust toward their supervisor and organization (Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006; Lind & Van den Bos, 2002; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). In addition, issues of organizational justice provide evidence of the legitimacy of organizational authorities in various activities such as the fair evaluation of employment tests (Block & Dworkin, 1976), fair rewards (Jacques, 1961), the fair resolution of grievances (Aram & Salipante, 1981), and the right to democratic decision making in the workplace (Locke & Schweiger, 1979). Given the important role of justice in organizational management, it is not surprising that social scientists have maintained that organizational justice should be the “first virtue of social institutions” (Colquitt et al., 2006; Greenberg, 1982, 1990; Lind, 2001; Rawls, 1971; Tyler & Lind, 1992; Van den Bos, 2001). What is surprising, however, is how little scholarly effort has been invested in exploring the relationships between organizational justice and the outcomes in public sector settings. The present study examines the impacts of organizational justice perceptions on employee attitudes with regard to job satisfaction, trust in management, and turnover intention. Some scholars (e.g., Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2006; Greenberg, 1990) argue that organizational justice perception is a multifaceted concept. They also note that different types of organizational justice perceptions may be associated with employees’ organizational behaviors in different ways. This study measures three dimensions of organizational justice perceptions and explores how these dimensions have potentially distinctive impacts on job satisfaction, trust in management, and turnover intention. Justice theories have generally failed to address gender differences in justice perception despite their significant impacts on justice-related issues (Major & Deaux, 1982). This study explores how gender differences affect justice perceptions. After reviewing the pertinent literature on organizational justice and its impacts on organizations, I will hypothesize about relationships between organizational justice perceptions and employee work-related attitudes. Then, I will test these hypotheses statistically. Whereas most previous research on this topic has been limited to small samples and to private organizations, this is the first study that uses a large data set that comes from 24 federal agencies. I will conclude with an assessment of the implications of my findings for public management.

Literature Review Organizational justice is, broadly defined, “the individual’s and the group’s perception of the fairness of treatment received from an organization and their behavioral reaction to such perceptions” (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002, p. 269; see also James, 1993). Previous scholarship has suggested that organizational justice is a multidimensional construct, each aspect of which should be separately defined (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001), in their metaanalysis, found that the three dimensions of justice—distributive, procedural, and interpersonal— were related but perceived in different ways.1 For instance, even if an outcome distribution is perceived as unfair it may be less critical to employees if they perceive that the allocation process

Choi

187

of the outcome is done fairly. Distributive justice is defined as the fairness of outcomes such as pay, rewards, and promotion. Individuals tend to gauge distributive justice by comparing their outcome/input ratios with those of others (Adams, 1965; Colquitt et al., 2006). Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the procedures or means by which outcomes are allocated (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Lind & Tyler, 1988). When individuals perceive procedures as consistent, accurate, and unbiased, the procedures are considered fair (Leventhal, 1980). Interpersonal justice,2 which has been most recently developed in justice research, focuses on the quality of the interpersonal treatment in the organization, or “the way the management is behaving towards the recipient of justice” (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001, p. 281; see also Colquitt et al., 2001). The early studies of organizational justice were grounded in Adams’s equity theory (1965), which focuses on the perceived justice of outcomes (distributive justice). The underlying notion of equity theory is that individuals tend to compare the ratios of their perceived outcomes (e.g., rewards or salary) to their perceived inputs (e.g., contributions) to the corresponding ratios of others. If an individual perceives the ratio is not equal, that individual is theorized to try to reduce inequity by adjusting his or her efforts or contributions in accordance with his or her perceptions. More recently, scholarly interests have broadened to consider procedural and interpersonal aspects of justice as well as distributive justice (Bies & Moag, 1986; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Rainey, 2003). Researchers argued that not only the fair distribution of outcomes but also fairness in decisionmaking processes resulting in the outcomes (e.g., fair administration of pay plans and grievance resolution) should be addressed in organizational justice (Greenberg, 1990). In addition, the expanded research of procedural justice indicates that perceived procedural justice is affected not only by formal procedures of decision making but also by decision makers’ interpersonal treatment of employees (Bies, 1987; Greenberg, 1990; Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). An interpersonal attribute of organizational justice is claimed to have an independent impact on perceptions of fairness because it concerns the social exchange relation of two individuals rather than the structural quality of the decision process or the outcomes resulting from that decision (Bies, 1986; Bies & Moag, 1986; Cropanzano & Randall, 1993; Tyler, 1988). Quite a few empirical studies have shown that organizational justice is significantly related to the key factors of employees’ work-related attitudes such as trust in management and supervisor, intention to leave, and job satisfaction (e.g., Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Rubin, 2009). More interestingly, some studies have captured the independent effects of each type of organizational justice perceptions on employees’ work attitudes (e.g., Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky, Folger, & Cropanzano, 1987; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993). For example, distributive justice has greater influence on employees’ attitudes toward the outcomes of organizational decisions, whereas procedural justice has greater influence on attitudes toward organizations (Tremblay, Sire, & Balkin, 2000). One of the core assumptions of justice theories is that the perception of justice is more likely to be the subjective evaluation of outcomes than their objective status because individuals tend to perceive justice by comparing their outcomes with those of others (Major, 1987). Thus, there exist individual differences in justice perceptions. Gender has been the individual difference factor that has received greatest attention in justice research (Greenberg & Cohen, 1982; Kahn, O’Leary, Krulewitz, & Lamm, 1980; Major & Adams, 1983; Major & Deaux, 1982). Despite the significant impacts of gender differences on justice behavior, it is true that relatively few theoretical perspectives have been developed (Major & Deaux, 1982). This study thus attempts to address the issue, using perspectives in social psychology. Interpersonal orientation perspective notes that gender differences in interpersonal orientations, styles, or goals may lead to different patterns of justice perception between men and women (Deaux, 1985; Kahn et al., 1980; Major, 1987). It assumes that because of different socialization histories, women are more communal and more concerned with the interpersonal aspects of their relationships, whereas men are more task-oriented and more

188


concerned with allocating rewards equitably in proportion to inputs (Major, 1987; Major & Adams, 1983). Additionally, women tend to focus more on process-oriented issues such as encouraging cooperation among coworkers and cultivating relationships with their colleagues (Deaux & Major, 1982; Farmer & Fyans, 1980; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). Men, in contrast, are more outcome oriented. A few studies have sought to examine the effects of different forms of organizational justice on employees’ work attitudes (Aryee et al., 2002; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001) and gender difference in perceptions on organizational justice (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). Most of the relevant studies have been conducted in the fields of business management and organizational psychology; therefore, it remains questionable whether the results can be directly applied to public organizations. The external validity of the findings in business management calls for sufficient skepticism, given that organization scholars indicate essential distinctions between public and private organizations (e.g., Benn & Gaus, 1983; Bozeman, 1987; Dahl & Lindblom, 1953; Perry & Rainey, 1988; Rainey, 2003; Wamsley & Zald, 1973). For example, scholars have noted that public organizations focus more than private organizations on rules and processes, which lead to greater levels of red tape and inefficiency (e.g., Bozeman, 1993; Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1969; Rainey, Pandey, & Bozeman, 1995). Despite decreased efficiency, complex rules and procedures have been emphasized to ensure fairness and equity in the processes of public administration. Indeed, most organizational justice studies in public administration have focused only on the effects of procedural justice and due process in organizations, while the impacts of distributive and interpersonal justice still remain untested (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Posthuma, 2003; Rubin, 2009; Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll, 1995). This study attempts to delve into the effects of each type of organizational justice on employees’ work attitudes and job perceptions in public organizations.

Hypotheses Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction In recent years, the relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction has received greater attention from organizational researchers (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Scholars maintain that perception of organizational justice can help employees feel satisfied with their jobs and evaluate their organization positively, consequently encouraging employees to be more strongly committed to the interests of the organization (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Lind & Tyler, 1988). As discussed earlier, different types of organizational justice perceptions may be related to employees’ job satisfaction in different ways (Lind & Tyler 1988). Previous research noted that distributive justice may be a more potent predictor of employees’ satisfaction with personal outcomes than procedural and interpersonal justice (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky et al., 1987; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). When employees perceive outcomes (e.g., pay and promotion) to be fairly distributed, they will be satisfied with their pay and positions. Perceived fairness of formal rules and procedures governing decisions, on the other hand, will improve employees’ attitudes toward their organizations and supervisors. Indeed, some empirical evidence has demonstrated that distributive justice accounts for more variance in personal outcomes such as pay and overall job satisfaction than procedural justice, whereas procedural justice was more strongly associated with organizational commitment and trust in supervisors than distributive justice (e.g., Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky et al., 1987; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993). From this the following hypotheses are formulated:

Choi

189

Hypothesis 1a: Employees’ distributive justice perceptions are positively related to their job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1b: Employees’ procedural justice perceptions are positively related to their job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1c: Employees’ interpersonal justice perceptions are positively related to their job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1d: Employees’ distributive justice perceptions are more strongly related to their job satisfaction than procedural justice and interpersonal justice.

Organizational Justice and Turnover Intention Perceived injustice may lead to negative attitudinal and affective reactions of employees or to counterproductive and withdrawal behaviors such as increased turnover (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Quite a few studies provide evidence that procedural justice is strongly linked to employees’ positive evaluations of organizations and supervisors (e.g., organizational commitment and trust in supervisors or management) than other types of justice perceptions (e.g., Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Tyler, 1984). Employees’ positive attitudes may enhance their organizational commitment, in turn decreasing turnover intention. Despite a relatively weaker impact on intention to leave, distributive justice perceptions are also significantly linked to turnover intention (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2001; Hom, Griffeth, & Sellaro, 1984). Distributive justice tends to decrease turnover intention of employees through pay satisfaction and job satisfaction (e.g., Barrett-Howard & Tyler, 1986; Bies & Shapiro, 1987; Hendrix, Robbins, Miller, & Summers, 1999; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Interpersonal justice is likely to influence employees’ affective outcomes in their workplace. For instance, when employees perceive to be treated unfairly by their supervisors, they are likely to develop counterproductive reactions such as conflicts with the supervisor, absenteeism, and turnover (Cohen-Charash & Spector 2001). Hence, the following hypotheses will be tested: Hypothesis 2a: Employees’ distributive justice perceptions are negatively related to their turnover intentions. Hypothesis 2b: Employees’ procedural justice perceptions are negatively related to their turnover intentions. Hypothesis 2c: Employees’ interpersonal justice perceptions are negatively related to their turnover intentions. Hypothesis 2d: Employees’ procedural justice perceptions are more strongly related to their turnover intention than distributive justice and interpersonal justice.

Organizational Justice and Trust Trust in social exchange relationships has centered on theorizing about procedural and interpersonal justice (Colquitt et al., 2001). Blau (1964, p. 98) noted that “the establishment of exchange relations involves making investments that constitute commitment to the other party. Since social exchange requires trusting others to reciprocate, the initial problem is to prove oneself trustworthy.” An exchange partner’s fair treatment (supervisor or organization) of the other (employee) reinforces a social exchange relationship with a partner (Aryee et al., 2002). When employees believe a fair policy process is used in the organization, they tend to show stronger support for the policy with higher levels of trust in their leaders and stronger commitment to their employers

190


(Kim & Mauborgne, 1991, 1993; Lind & Tyler, 1988). In contrast, when employees perceive unfairness in the process of allocating resources, they are likely to develop negative attitudinal reactions such as lower trust and decreased commitment toward supervisors and the organization and act against the organization (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Dailey & Kirk, 1992). Some empirical evidence has confirmed that procedural and interpersonal justice relate significantly to employees’ trust in the organization and their supervisor (Albrecht & Travaglione, 2003; Aryee et al., 2002; Colquitt et al., 2001; Pearce, Branyiczki, & Bakacsi, 1994). Procedural justice perception was found to have a significant effect on employee attitudes toward the overall management of the organization such as positive evaluation of the management (Cropanzano & Randall 1993; Pearce et al., 1994). Interpersonal justice was also an important factor that may influence employees’ attitudinal reactions, such as trust toward immediate supervisors who carry out the interpersonal treatment (Bies & Moag, 1986; Malatesta & Byrne, 1997; Masterson et al., 2000). On the basis of this, the following hypotheses will be tested: Hypothesis 3a: Employees’ procedural justice perceptions are positively related to their trust in upper management and the organization. Hypothesis 3b: Employees’ interpersonal justice perceptions are positively related to their trust in their immediate supervisor. Hypothesis 3c: Employees’ procedural justice perceptions are more strongly related to their trust in upper management and the organization than interpersonal justice and distributive justice. Hypothesis 3d: Employees’ interpersonal justice perceptions are more strongly related to their trust in their immediate supervisor than procedural justice and distributive justice.

The Moderating Effects of Gender Empirical studies both in a laboratory setting and in real organizations (e.g., Greenberg, 1990; Kahn & Gaeddert, 1985; Major, 1987; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997) demonstrated that gender difference significantly affects individuals’ reaction to fairness. For example, women tend to have lower expectations for rewards than men (e.g., Greenberg, 1990; Kahn & Gaeddert, 1985; Major, 1987; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). When women perceive inequitable pay they are likely to be less dissatisfied than men because they tend to compare with other female colleagues who are also paid less than men. Women, on the other hand, seem to focus more on procedural and interpersonal justice than men do. Women tend to place greater emphasis on fair procedures than the outcomes of the processes (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). Women may emphasize success in interpersonal or social relationships with their coworkers than men do (Major & Adams, 1983; Rosener, 1990; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). It may be because women have to rely on more formal procedures and systems to obtain various organizational outcomes because of historical discrimination and gender-role stereotyping that has excluded them from decision-making processes (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). Thus, the following hypotheses will be tested: Hypothesis 4a: Women will have higher job satisfaction than men do when they perceive procedural justice and interpersonal justice. Hypothesis 4b: Women will have higher trust in supervisor and management than men do when they perceive procedural justice and interpersonal justice. Hypothesis 4c: Women will have lower turnover intention than men do when they perceive procedural justice and interpersonal justice.

Choi

191

Data and Measurement Data Sources and Sample The source of the data is the 2005 Merit Principles Survey, which was published by the U.S. Merit System Protection Board (MSPB). The purpose of the survey is to evaluate how effectively the human resource management of the federal government adheres to the merit system principles. A total of 24 federal agencies participated in the survey.3 MSPB selected representative, random samples of full-time, permanent employees in each subagency or major division to participate in the survey. The response rate was approximately 50%, with a total of 36,926 employees completing the survey. The questionnaire included items inquiring about job satisfaction, job performance of a work unit, pay and rewards, perception of justice, and trust in supervisor. Some demographic information of respondents such as gender, race/ethnicity, age, pay grade, and education level was also reported.

Method I test the models using a series of hierarchical regressions. Moderated multiple regression first tests the relationship of independent variables of interest on the dependent variable and then tests the relationship of the interaction term of the independent variables. In the “hierarchical” form of regression, independent variables are not entered into the regression equation simultaneously, but in the order based on logical or theoretical considerations. Typically, the continuous predictor and the polychotomous predictor are entered in the first step, and the interaction term is entered in the second step (Aiken & West, 1991; Choi & Rainey, 2010). Researchers (e.g., Allison, 1977; Friedrich, 1982; Smith & Sasaki, 1979; Wright, 1976) indicated that because a multiplicative term is often highly correlated with its constituent variables, the inclusion of the multiplicative term in a model with its constituent variables leads to multicollinearity, which yields unreliable and unstable coefficients.4 Thus, studies in organizational behavior and social psychology (e.g., Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen, 1978; Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Simons & Peterson, 2000) used a hierarchical regression procedure to solve the problem, in which the effect of a multiplicative term on a dependent variable should be assessed only after the effects of its constituent variables on the dependent variable have been partialed out (Friedrich, 1982). To obtain more accurate estimation, I decided to use hierarchical regression models.

Measures The 2005 Merit Principles Survey is designed to evaluate federal employees’ work-related perceptions such as fairness, job satisfaction, pay and rewards, trust in supervisor and management, and turnover intention. The survey items used in this study were answered on a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). They were coded in reverse so that a higher rating indicates a higher level of agreement with the question (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree).

Independent Variables Organizational justice. The measures of organizational justice were constructed using the relevant survey questions. The items were selected by referring to the measures that have been used in previous literature. A distributive justice scale measures the equity rule as “appropriateness of the outcome, given their contributions” (Colquitt, 2001, p. 389; see also Leventhal, 1980). A procedural justice scale measures “correctability” (e.g., appeal procedures are available for correction) and

192


Table 1. Three Dimensions of Organizational Justice Variables Distributive justice

Procedural justice

Interpersonal justice

Survey Questions In the past 2 years, to what extent do you believe you have been treated fairly regarding the following? Fairly—Career advancement Fairly—Awards Fairly—Training Fairly—Performance appraisals Fairly—Job assignments Fairly—Pay Fairly—Discipline I trust third party investigative or adjudicatory agencies (such as the OSC, EEOC, FLRA, MSPB) to respond appropriately to complaints. I believe that the current employment grievance system, if I had the occasion to use it, would be fair. I believe that the current employment appeals system, if I had the occasion to use it, would be fair. To what extent do you think your supervisor (Sup) will exercise each of the following authorities in a fair and effective manner? Sup Fair—Rating the qualifications of applicants for jobs Sup Fair—Selecting people for vacancies or promotions based on their qualifications Sup Fair—Determining pay increases and awards Sup Fair—Setting individual employees pay within broad pay bands Sup Fair—Taking adverse actions such as suspensions and removals

Factor Loadings

.731 .734 .699 .747 .742 .743 .646 .108

.166 .215 .133 .221 .189 .144 .146 .093

.140 .089 .129 .114 .161 .116 .097 .818

.217

.147

.903

.222

.148

.905

.231 .241

.803 .819

.124 .117

.289 .138

.799 .755

.094 .082

.119

.732

.087

Note. Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. The values in boldface show that the survey questions measure three different variables.

“bias suppression” (e.g., decision makers are fair and neutral; Colquitt, 2001; Leventhal, 1980; Lind, 1995; Tyler, 1989). An interpersonal justice scale measures “managerial responsibilities associated with ensuring fairness in the implementation of decision-making procedures in organizations” (e.g., neutrality or suppressing biases and consistent application of decision-making criteria; Folger & Bies, 1989, p. 79). The content validity of these measures may be limited because this study used the secondary data collected by MSPB, which was not designed to measure the perceptions of organizational justice. Table 1 shows that the survey questions are combined into three factors by principal factor analysis and varimax rotation methods, suggesting that three types of organizational justice are separate constructs that measure the three independent dimensions of organizational justice perceptions of employees—distributive, procedural, and interpersonal. Distributive justice was measured through seven items (α = .896), procedural justice through three items (α = .889), and interpersonal justice through five items (α = .871). Factor loadings ranged from .646 to .905. The initial eigenvalue of the scale was 6.059. Organizational justice variables are subjective measures; therefore, some may argue that these perceptual measures are less effective than a more objective measure. However, many scholars (e.g., Brewer, 2005; Pandey, Coursey, & Moynihan, 2007; Pitts, 2009) argue that there are significant relationships between subjective and objective measures in public management research. In addition, organizational justice or fairness is determined by the subjective evaluation of outcomes rather than by the objective status of the outcomes (Major, 1987). Thus, the use of the

193

Choi Table 2. Trust in Supervisor and in Upper Management Variables Trust in supervisor

Trust in upper management

Survey Questions

Components

I trust my supervisor (Sup) to: Trust Sup—Fairly assess my performance and contributions Trust Sup—Support me in pay and award discussions with upper management Trust Sup—Listen fairly to my concerns Trust Sup—Apply discipline fairly and only when justified Trust Sup—Clearly communicate conduct expectations Trust Sup—Act with integrity Trust Sup—Refrain from favoritism Trust Sup—Keep me informed I trust managers above my immediate supervisor to: Trust Upper Managers—Clearly communicate organizational performance expectations Trust Upper Managers—Fairly assess my performance and contributions Trust Upper Managers—Listen fairly to my concerns Trust Upper Managers—Apply discipline fairly and only when justified Trust Upper Managers—Act with integrity Trust Upper Managers—Refrain from favoritism Trust Upper Managers—Keep the organization informed

.854 .816

.272 .310

.881 .844 .827 .868 .846 .813

.261 .287 .284 .262 .294 .316

.253

.832

.315

.853

.297 .306 .302 .301 .244

.872 .844 .853 .849 .850

Note. Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. The values in boldface show that the survey questions measure two different variables.

subjective measures of organizational justice may provide a more accurate estimate of the relationships between organizational justice and employees’ work attitudes than objective measures can.

Dependent Variables Trust. Trust variables measure respondents’ trust in their immediate supervisor and in upper management. The survey items used for these measures inquire about fair performance appraisal, fair treatment, justice in discipline, open communication, and integrity of supervisor and management. Table 2 displays that the factor analysis extracted two components, which suggests that trust in supervisor and in upper management are distinctive constructs. Eight survey questions for trust in immediate supervisor (α = .962) and seven items for trust in upper management (α = .96) are combined to develop two index variables. Factor loadings of trust in immediate supervisor range between .873 and .917 through principal factor analysis and varimax rotation. Factor loadings of trust in upper management range between .867 and .922. The initial eigenvalues of these scales are 6.351 and 5.649, respectively. Job satisfaction. I measure job satisfaction of respondents using responses to the question, “In general, I am satisfied with my job.” Responses are recoded and range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Turnover intention. To measure the turnover intention of respondents I use responses to the survey question, “How likely is it that you will leave your agency in the next 12 months?”5 Respondents also answered the item on 5-point scales (5 = very likely to 1 = very unlikely).

194


Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of variables Variables Minority Gender Age Salary Organizational tenure Supervisor Manager Executive Distributive justice Procedural justice Interpersonal justice Job satisfaction Trust in supervisor Trust in management Intention to leave

Mean

SD

Min

Max

0.23 0.41 4.47 4.70 4.49 0.27 0.16 0.03 0 0 0 3.83 0 0 3.98

0.42 0.49 0.91 1.64 1.46 0.44 0.37 0.17 1 1 1 0.98 1 1 1.48

0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 −2.63 −2.72 −2.52 1 −2.83 −2.38 1

1 1 6 6 6 1 1 1 1.84 2.09 1.33 5 1.21 1.53 6

Unit Minority = 1; Nonminority = 0 Female = 1; Male = 0

Supervisor = 1 Manager = 1 Executive = 1 Factor score Factor score Factor score “Strongly disagree = 1” to “Strongly agree = 5” Factor score Factor score “Very unlikely = 1” to “Very likely = 6”

Approximately 26.28% (n = 7,320) of the sample reported that they are considering leaving their organization within the next 12 months.6 Demographics. Demographic variables, including gender, minority, and supervisory status, are recorded as dichotomous variables to control their effects on dependent variables. The findings of previous research show that differences in terms of gender,7 minority status, and supervisory status significantly affect turnover intention. The gender variable is recorded as a “1” for female respondents and as “0” for male respondents. The minority variable is recorded as a “0” when a respondent is White and is recorded as a “1” when a respondent is non-White.8 The supervisory status is classified into three types—supervisor, manager, and executive. These three types of supervisory status are developed as three dummy variables. Table 3 provides the descriptive statistics of the variables.

Results Tables 4 and 5 set out the results of testing the relationships between organizational justice perceptions and job satisfaction, turnover intention, and trust, along with the moderating effects of gender. Model 1 tests the relationship between organizational justice perceptions and job satisfaction, and Model 2 between organizational justice perceptions and turnover intention. I use hierarchical ordered logistic regressions for Models 1 and 2 because the dependent variable of each model is measured on 5-point and 6-point Likert-type scales, respectively. Models 3 and 4 examine the relationships between organizational justice perceptions and trust in immediate supervisor and upper management, respectively. Hierarchical regressions are employed to test Models 3 and 4. The variance inflation factor (VIF) test for multicollinearity revealed that the largest VIF value and the average were 1.50 and 1.24, respectively, lower than the typical cutoff point of 3.5. The effect sizes of independent variables on a dependent variable in a logistic regression model can be more easily interpreted in terms of changes in the odds. For a unit change in a variable, the odds are expected to change by a factor of the exponential of the coefficient, holding all other variables constant (Long & Freese, 2006). Odds more than 1 indicate that a unit change in the independent variable is associated with an increase in the odds of the dependent variable, whereas an odds ratio less than 1 indicates that a unit change in the independent variable relates to a decrease in the odds of the dependent. For example, a 1 unit increase in distributive justice,

195

Choi Table 4. Hierarchical Ordered Logistic Regressions Dependent Variables Model 1: Job Satisfaction Independent Variables

Odds Ratio

Step 1: Demographic variables Minority 0.993 Gender 1.082*** Age 0.972* Salary 1.024*** Organizational Tenure 1.040*** Supervisor 1.30*** Manager 1.843*** Executive 2.697*** Log likelihood −36759.453 LR chi-square 668.32 McFadden’s R2 .01 Number of observations 28,858 Step 2: The direct organizational justice effects Distributive justice 2.711*** Procedural justice 1.324*** Interpersonal justice 1.436*** Log likelihood LR chi-square McFadden’s R2 Step 3: The moderating effects of gender Distributive justice ∗ Gender .998 Procedural justice ∗ Gender .936** Interpersonal justice ∗ gender .984 Log likelihood −31537.719 LR chi-square 9.57 McFadden’s R2 .1498

SE .026 .025 .013 .008 .009 .035 .062 .192

.042 .019 .018 −31542.505 10433.90 .1497 .028 .024 .027

Model 2: Turnover Intention Odds Ratio 1.091** 0.890*** 1.334*** 1.028** 0.872*** 0.980 0.987 1.264*** −40515.2*** 636.96 .008 28,986 .703*** .931*** .968* Log likelihood LR chi-square McFadden’s R2 1.036 1.038 1.016 −39933.4* 9.33 .0220

SE .026 .024 .013 .010 .009 .027 .033 .067

.014 .012 .014 −39938.1*** 1154.26 .0219 .028 .025 .027

Note. Model 1 represents the effect of diversity and contextual factors on job satisfaction and was tested by a hierarchical linear regression method; Model 2 represents the effects of diversity and contextual factors on turnover intention and was tested by a hierarchical logistic regression method; Model 3 represents the effects of diversity and contextual factors on turnover intention, controlling the effect of job satisfaction. It was tested by a hierarchical logistic regression method. † p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

procedural justice, and interpersonal justice decreases the odds of intention to leave by a factor of .7, .93, and .97, while increasing the odds of job satisfaction by a factor of 2.71, 1.32, and 1.44, respectively. Each form of organizational justice perceptions is positively related to employees’ job satisfaction in support of hypotheses regarding job satisfaction. The results also show that perception of distributive justice explains greater variance of job satisfaction than procedural justice or interpersonal justice. This finding indicates that employees are more likely to feel satisfied with their jobs when they perceive fair distribution of personal outcomes than justice in procedures and interpersonal relationships. In contrast, all three dimensions of organizational justice perceptions are negatively related to turnover intention of employees, which is also consistent with hypotheses concerning turnover intention. It suggests that when employees perceive organizational justice, they tend to have decreased intention to leave their organizations. However, the hypothesis that proposes the

196


Table 5. Hierarchical Linear Regressions Dependent Variables Model 3: Trust in Supervisor Independent Variables

Coeff.

Step 1: Demographic variables Minority −.125*** Gender .003 Age −.052*** Salary .034*** Organizational Tenure −.000 Supervisor .157*** Manager .298*** Executive .354*** Partial F value 97.05*** R2 .0266 Number of observations 28,458 Step 2: The direct organizational justice effects Distributive justice .363*** Procedural justice .095*** Interpersonal justice .439*** Partial F value 9864.00*** R2 .5229 Number of observations 28,458 Step 3: The moderating effect of organizational justice Distributive justice ∗ Gender .013 Procedural justice ∗ Gender .020† Interpersonal justice ∗ gender −.016 Partial F value 2.80† R2 .5230 Number of observations 28,458

Model 4: Trust in Management

SE.

Coeff.

.014 .012 .007 .004 .004 .014 .018 .037

.023 .023 −.033*** .004 −.007 .120*** .368*** .518*** 84.34*** .023 28,479

.014 .012 .007 .004 .005 .014 .018 .037

.005 .004 .005

.367*** .244*** .198*** 5911.25*** .3981 28,479

.006 .005 .006

.010 .009 .010

−.025* .025* −.031** 7.75*** .3986 28,479

SE

.011 .010 .011

Note. Model 1 represents the effect of diversity and contextual factors on job satisfaction and was tested by a hierarchical linear regression method; Model 2 represents the effects of diversity and contextual factors on turnover intention and was tested by a hierarchical logistic regression method; Model 3 represents the effects of diversity and contextual factors on turnover intention, controlling the effect of job satisfaction. It was tested by a hierarchical logistic regression method. † p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

stronger association between procedural justice and turnover intention than the other types of organizational justice is not supported. Distributive justice turns out to be most strongly related to turnover intention among the three types of organizational justice. In other words, fair distribution of pay and rewards may be the most potent predictor of decreased absenteeism and turnover of employees in public organizations. Results for the hypotheses of trust in supervisor and management are mixed. Organizational justice perceptions are positively associated with employee trust in immediate supervisor and upper management, consistent with the hypotheses regarding trust in supervisor and upper management. Interpersonal justice explains greater variance of trust in immediate supervisor than distributive justice and procedural justice, which also supports the hypothesis about the stronger relationship between interpersonal justice and trust in supervisor than the other aspects of justice. However, the hypothesis about the relationship between procedural justice and trust in upper management is not consistent with the result. Distributive justice explains greater variance of trust

Choi

197

in upper management than interpersonal justice and procedural justice. It implies that when employees perceive fair and equal treatment in the relationships with their immediate supervisor they are more likely to trust their supervisor. When employees perceive they received fair personal outcomes, they are more likely to maintain high level of trust in upper-level management and their organization. The moderating effects of gender on the relationships between organizational justice perceptions and dependent variables are marginally significant. Only the moderating effects of gender on the relationships between justice perceptions and trust toward supervisor and management are supported. Results demonstrate that women are more likely to show higher levels of trust in their supervisor and upper management than men when they perceive procedural justice. On the other hand, men showed higher levels of trust in upper management than women when they perceived distributive justice and interpersonal justice. According to the results of this study, gender differences do not have a significant impact on the relationships between perceived justice and job satisfaction and turnover intention.

Discussion and Conclusion The purpose of this study is to explore the relationships between organizational justice perceptions and employees’ work-related attitudes such as job satisfaction, trust in supervisor and management, and turnover intention in public organizations. Organizational researchers have only recently begun to focus on a multifaceted construct of organizational justice perceptions and examine the potentially independent relationships between different types of perceived organizational justice and employees’ affective outcomes (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano et al., Greenberg, 1990). Moreover, little research in public administration has explored the impacts of organizational justice in public organizations. The findings of this study will contribute to filling these gaps in the literature. The results suggest the following three conclusions: First, organizational justice perceptions are positively related to desirable work attitudes of employees such as increased job satisfaction, positive evaluation of leadership and management, and decreased turnover intention; second, different forms of organizational justice perceptions have independent influence over employees’ work attitudes; and last, the moderating effects of gender differences are marginally significant on the relationships between organizational justice perceptions and trust in immediate supervisor and upper management. Interestingly, the relationship between distributive justice and employees’ work satisfaction and positive evaluation of leadership and the organizations turned out to be strongest, except the relationship between interpersonal justice and trust in an immediate supervisor. This finding indicates important implications for public managers and scholars in the field, given that procedural justice has generally been the biggest concern in public organizations. As expected, employees’ perceptions of organizational justice are positively related to their work attitudes, which may exert positive influences on the overall management of the organization (e.g., managing people and processes) as well as the quality of work life of employees. Perceptions of fairness in personal outcomes, in procedures of decision making, and in relationships with supervisors positively contributed to employees’ satisfaction with their job. Organizational justice perceptions may also improve employees’ trust in their immediate supervisor and in the upper management of the organization, thus affecting employee performance and affective outcomes (Albrecht & Travaglione, 2003; Aryee et al., 2002; Colquitt et al., 2001; Pearce et al., 1994). On the other hand, perceptions of organizational justice are negatively related to employees’ intentions to leave their organizations, suggesting that in organizations maintaining high levels of organizational justice, employees may have lower levels of intention to leave their organizations. This finding will have important implications for public managers and agencies given that retaining experienced and competent employees has become a more critical concern in the results-oriented

198


organizational culture in the public sector (Thompson & Seidner, 2009). Nevertheless, the turnover intention model explains a relatively small variance of the dependent variable compared with the other models. This may be because employee turnover could be influenced by a large number of variables including individual determinants as well as the social context (Choi, 2009; Mobley, 1982; O’Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989). Some scholars have noted that explaining turnover reliably requires examining at least 26 separate variables, including social, organizational, job, and personal characteristics (Choi, 2009; Cotton & Tuttle, 1986). The most intriguing findings of this study are the relative effects of three different types of organizational justice perceptions on work-related attitudes of public employees. Although many scholars have suspected that different forms of organizational justice perceptions may have independent effects on individuals or the organization (e.g., Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; CohenCharash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2007; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1990; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997; Tyler, 1984), there is little empirical evidence of the possibly different impacts of three forms of organizational justice. In this study, distributive justice perception turned out to be more strongly related to employees’ work attitudes such as job satisfaction, trust in management, and turnover intention than procedural and interpersonal justice perceptions. This finding is consistent with those of previous studies that demonstrated distributive justice is a stronger predictor of job satisfaction than procedural and interpersonal justice dimensions (e.g., Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky et al., 1987). Adams’s equity theory (1965) explains that employees’ job satisfaction will be significantly influenced by the comparison of the ratios of their personal outcomes to their inputs to the corresponding ratios of others. Perceived inequity can produce distress among inequitably treated individuals. Some evidence shows that underrewarded individuals reported more distress than overrewarded ones (Cook & Hegtevdt, 1983). An alternative explanation might be that distributive justice may have greater variance among individuals, leading to consistently stronger relationships with the individual attitudes than procedural justice, which is an organizational-level variable with less variability across federal agencies.9 However, the relationship between procedural justice and trust in management does not support the argument that employees unsatisfied with their personal outcomes may still evaluate their immediate supervisor and management of their organization positively if they believe that decisions have been made using fair procedures (Greenberg & Folger, 1983). The possible explanation may be that employees tend to pay more attention to fairness in personal outcome distribution than to formal rules and procedures employed by upper management when they make a judgment on whether management is trustworthy. Similarly, distributive justice perceptions may be more strongly linked to job satisfaction and organizational commitment, thus influencing turnover intention of employees (Hom et al., 1984). Interpersonal justice, which relies on the quality of treatment by employees’ supervisors, is more strongly related to trust in employees’ immediate supervisors than the other forms of organizational justice perceptions, which is consistent with my expectation. This result also supports previous empirical evidence that suggests interpersonal justice relates to the exchange between an employee and his/her supervisor (Aryee et al., 2002; Cropanzano & Prehar, 1999). The moderating effects of gender are marginally significant but reveal that women and men weigh different types of organizational justice in different ways. Whereas some empirical studies indicate that women tend to be less dissatisfied than men when they perceive unfair distribution of pay or rewards (Brockner & Adsit, 1986; Jackson & Grabski, 1988), this study shows no such evidence. This may be because the gender-based wage gap has decreased over past decades and the fair treatment of female employees in the workplace has improved, which may have raised women’s expectations regarding pay and rewards for their jobs. Another possible explanation is that women may be paid more equitably in the public sector than in the private sector. Nevertheless,

Choi

199

women still demonstrate higher levels of trust in their supervisor and the upper management of the organization than men when they perceive fairness in decision-making procedures. This result is consistent with previous research that demonstrated procedural justice had a bigger influence on how women evaluate their experience in organizations than it does for men (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). The possible explanation for this may be that women are more likely to rely on formal procedures than outcomes or interpersonal relationships because there has been historical discrimination against women in the workplace. Some limitations of this study should be addressed. First, the cross-sectional data of this study may preclude causal inferences. Thus, the result does not guarantee the causal directions of the observed relations in this study. Second, variables are measured by self-reported responses, which may raise the possibility of mono-source biases in some results. Third, it should be acknowledged that the content validity of index variables in this study needs further improvement because they are constructed by the survey items that were not designed for this study. Finally, the potential effects of work characteristics and individual factors on turnover should be controlled to obtain a more accurate pattern of the relationships between organizational justice and turnover (Choi, 2009). Future research should employ a richer set of variables to obtain more accurate results of the effects of organizational justice on turnover, which will help public managers and policy makers retain their valuable human resources. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Notes 1. The early research on organizational justice focused primarily on distributive justice. It has not been long since theorists have established the distinction between multifaceted constructs of organizational justice based on content—distributive justice approaches and procedural justice approaches (Greenberg, 1990; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). The most recent advance in the justice research is the introduction of interpersonal justice that focuses on the interpersonal dimensions of procedural justice (Greenberg, 1990). Whereas previous research has supported the distinction between distributive and procedural justice, it is still controversial to distinguish between procedural justice and interpersonal justice (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). 2. There is less agreement over the distinction between procedural justice and interpersonal justice. Some (e.g., Colquitt, 2001; Cropanzano & Prehar, 1999) may maintain that perceptions of procedural justice may be influenced not only by the formal procedures used to determine outcome allocation but also by the interpersonal treatment and the adequate explanations of decisions by decisions makers (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Greenberg, 1990). Thus, they argue that the human side of the management, or justice in interpersonal relationships, should be distinguished from the fairness of the formal procedures (CohenCharash & Spector, 2001). However, others (e.g., Tyler & Bies, 1990) still doubt the distinction between procedural justice and interpersonal justice. 3. MSPB selected a representative, agency-wide random sample of nonsupervisory employees and all levels of supervisors. A total of 24 departments and independent agencies participated in the survey, which include the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense (Air Force, Army, and Navy), Department of Education, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, General Services Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban

200

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.


Development, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of Interior, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Personnel Management, Social Security Administration, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Department of Treasury, and Department of Veterans Affairs. The results of ordinary least squares regressions indicate that the interaction terms of distributive and interpersonal justice and sex cause high VIF values that possibly lead to multicollinearity in the models. Hierarchical regressions might be better to obtain more accurate results. Some may argue about the possibility that respondents are likely to report that they intend to stay for fear that their responses will be exposed to their managers even though the survey was anonymous. The Office of Personnel Management evinced the highest levels (33.95%) of employees’ turnover intentions, whereas the Social Security Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had the lowest, 18.87% and 19.66%, respectively. Among the executive branch departments, the Department of Education and Department of Homeland Security reported the maximum levels (33.33% and 32.25%, respectively) of employee turnover intentions, whereas the Department of Agriculture and Department of Justice showed the lowest levels (20.60% and 21.33%, respectively) of employees’ intentions to leave their agency. It is important to acknowledge that gender is a social and cultural construct that describes life experiences, socialization, and social status of the individual, whereas sex is a biological term that is related to anatomical structure of the individual (Diamond, 2002). Even though social scientists argue that gender rather than sex is likely to lead to the differences in an individual’s behaviors and perceptions, they have used sex as a proxy measure of gender because of lack of alternative measures. The 2005 MSPB survey classified race/ethnic groups into six categories—American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Black/African American (not of Hispanic origin), White, and Hispanic or Latino. This study defines non-Whites as racial/ethnic minorities. I appreciate an anonymous reviewer raising this concern.

References Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York, NY: Academic Press. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Albrecht, S. L., & Travaglione, T. (2003). Trust in public sector senior management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 1-17. Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198. Allison, P. D. (1977). Testing for integration in multiple regression. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 144-153. Aram, J. D., & Salipante, P. F. (1981). An evaluation of organizational due process in the resolution of employee/ employer conflict. Academy of Management Review, 6, 197-204. 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, 267-286. Barrett-Howard, E., & Tyler, T. (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296-304. Benn, S. I., & Gaus, G. F. (1983). Public and private in social life. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Bies, R. J. (1986). Identifying principles of interactional justice: The case of corporate recruiting. In R. J. Bies (Ed.), Moving beyond equity theory: New directions in research on justice in organizations. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.

Choi

201

Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 289-319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199-218. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley. Block, N., & Dworkin, G. (1976). The IQ controversy. New York, NY: Pantheon. Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational theories. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bozeman, B. (1993). A theory of government “red tape.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 273-303. Brewer, G. A. (2005). In the eye of the storm: Frontline supervisors and federal agency performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 505-527. Brockner, J., & Adsit, L. (1986). The moderating impact of gender on the equity-satisfaction relationship: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 585-590. Choi, S. (2009). Diversity in the US federal government: Diversity management and employee turnover in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 603-630. Choi, S. & Rainey, H. G. (2010). Managing Diversity in U.S. Federal Agencies: Effects of Diversity and Diversity Management on Employee Perceptions of Organizational Performance. Public Administration Review, 70 (1): 109-21. Cohen, J. (1978). Partialed products are interactions: Partialed powers are curve components. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 858-866. Cohen, J., & Cohen, J. (1983). Applied multiple regression and correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321. 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., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analysis review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 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 Processes, 100, 110-127. Cook, K. S., & Hegtevdt, K. A. (1983). Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 217-241. Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 55-70. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 34-48. Cropanzano, R., & Prehar, C. A. (1999, May). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Cropanzano, R., & Randall, M. L. (1993). Injustice and work behavior: A historical review. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resources management (pp. 1-20). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

202


Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics and welfare. New York, NY: Harper. Dailey, R. C., & Kirk, D. J. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45, 305-317. Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49-81. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1982). Individual differences in justice behavior. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 43-76). New York, NY: Academic Press. Diamond, M. (2002). Sex and gender are different: Sexual identity and gender identity are different. Clinical Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 7(3): 320-34. Farmer, H. S., & Fyans, L. J. (1980). Women’s achievement and career motivation: Their risk-taking patterns, home-career conflict, sex role orientation, fear of success, and self-concept. In L. J. Fyans (Ed.), Achievement and motivation: Recent trends in theory and research (pp. 390-416). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Folger, R., & Bies R. J. (1989). Managerial responsibility and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 79-90. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reaction to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130. Friedrich, R. J. (1982). In defense of multiple terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 797-833. Greenberg, J. (1982). Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 389-435). New York, NY: Academic Press. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-443. Greenberg, J., & Cohen, R. L. (Eds.). (1982). Equity and justice in social behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press. Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 235-256). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Hendrix, W., Robbins, T., Miller, J., & Summers, T. P. (1999, May). Procedural and distributive justice effects on turnover. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., & Sellaro, C. L. (1984). The validity of Mobley’s (1977) model of employee turnover. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 34, 141-174. Jackson, L. A., & Grabski, S. V. (1988). Perceptions of fair pay and the gender wage gap. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 606-625. Jacques, E. (1961). Equitable payment. New York, NY: Wiley. James, K. (1993). The social context of organizational justice: Cultural, intergroup and structural effects on justice behaviors and perceptions. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resources management (pp. 21-50). Hillsdale, CT: Erlbaum. Kahn, A. S., & Gaeddert, W. P. (1985). From theories of equity to theories of justice: The consequences of studying women. In V. E. O’Leary, R. K. Unger, & B. S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 129-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kahn, A. S., O’Leary, V. E., Krulewitz, J. E., & Lamm, H. (1980). Equity and equality: Male and female means to a just end. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 173-197. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1991). Implementing global strategies: The role of procedural justice. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 125-143. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top management compliance with multinationals corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 502-526. Konovsky, M. A., Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1987). Relative effects of procedural and distributive justice on employee attitudes. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17, 15-24.

Choi

203

Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 1-18. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56-88). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 24, pp. 181-223). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision making: One more look, In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 265-339). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata. Major, B. (1987). Gender, justice, and the psychology of entitlement. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender (pp. 124-148). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Major, B., & Adams, J. B. (1983). Role of gender, interpersonal orientation, and self-presentation in distributive-justice behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 598-608. Major, B., & Deaux, K. (1982). Individual differences in justice behavior. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 43-76). New York, NY: Academic Press. Malatesta, R. M., & Byrne, Z. S. (1997, April). The impact of formal and interactional justice on organizational outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626-637. 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. Mobley, W. H. (1982). Employee turnover causes, consequences, and control. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21-37. Pandey, S. K., Coursey, D. H., & Moynihan, D. P. (2007). Organizational effectiveness and bureaucratic red tape: A multi-method study. Public Performance and Management Review, 30:398-425. Pearce, J. L., Branyiczki, I., & Bakacsi, G. (1994). Person-based reward systems: A theory of organizational reward practices in reform-communist organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 261-282. Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13, 182-201. Pitts, D. (2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from U.S. federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 69, 328-338. Posthuma, R. A. (2003). Procedural due process and procedural justice in the workplace: A comparison and analysis. Public Personnel Management, 32, 181-196. Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1969). The context of organization structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 91-114. Rainey, H. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

204


Rainey, H. G., Pandey, S., & Bozeman, B. (1995). Public and private managers’ perceptions of red tape. Public Administration Review, 55, 567-574. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68, 119-125. Rubin, E. (2009). The role of procedural justice in public personnel management: Empirical results from the Department of Defense. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 125-143. Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intergroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111. Smith, K. W., & Sasaki, M. S. (1979). Decreasing multicollinearity: A method for models with multiplicative functions. Sociological Methods and Research, 8, 35-56. Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers’ evaluations 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. Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 83-98. Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495-523. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Thompson, J., & Seidner, R. (2009). Human resource management in the federal government during a time of change. In S. W. Hays, R. Kearney, & J. D. Coggburn (Eds.), Public human resource management: Problems and prospects (pp. 34-45). New York, NY: Pearson. Tremblay, M., Sire, B., & Balkin, D. (2000). The role of organizational justice in pay and employee benefit satisfaction, and its effects on work attitudes. Group and Organization Management, 25, 268-289. Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendants’ evaluation of their courtroom experience. Law and Society Review, 18, 51-74. Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Law and Society Review, 22, 301-335. Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 77-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2006). OPM Director Springer Launches Major Media Campaign During Newsmaker Event at the National Press Club. Press Release May 1, 2006. Van den Bos, K. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Assessing the information to which people are reacting has a pivotal role in understanding organizational justice. In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 63-84). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Wamsley, G. L., & Zald, M. N. (1973). The political economy of public organizations. Lexington, MA: Health. Wright, G. C. (1976). Linear models for evaluating conditional relationships. American Journal of Political Science, 20, 349-373.

Bio Sungjoo Choi is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Kennesaw State University. Her research interests include diversity management, organizational justice, and performance management in public organizations.