Literature Review

Procedural Justice and job satisfaction

H1: There is significant relation between procedural justice and job satisfaction. 1. The research article is written by Selin Metin Camgoz and Pinar Karapinar and finds the relationship between job satisfaction and procedural justice. The survey of this article was collected from 218 employees who were working in insurance companies. The researchers adapted a two-step approach (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) and conducted a confirmatory factor analysis. Their research led to a positive relationship between procedural justice and job satisfaction. The mediation regressions were used to test the hypothesized models; the three conditions (Baron & Kenny, 1986) were also used.

H1: There is significant relation between procedural justice and job satisfaction. 2. The article Procedural Justice as Predictors of Satisfaction with organizational outcomes by Dean B. McFarlin and Paul D. Sweeney finds the relationships between justice and satisfaction. They surveyed approximately 1100 employees working in a bank. The researchers constructed a four-item procedural justice scale that used the same basic format and five-point response scale as the Distributive Justice Index (Price and Mueller, 1986). They found procedural justice accounted for more

variance in management evaluations, job satisfaction, and perceived conflict than distributive justice. Procedural justice did not affect satisfaction (with pay level) more than the distributive justice. Their results showed that distributive justice tended to be a more important predictor of personal outcomes (pay and job satisfaction) than procedural justice. In addition, procedural justice was a more important predictor of both organizational outcomes.

H1: There is no significant relation between procedural justice and job satisfaction. 3. The present study explored the relationship between perceived organizational justice, job satisfaction and organization commitment using a field sample. Sample for the

present study consisted of 128 employees working in medical college. Procedural justice was measured using 15 item scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993). Regression analysis of the data obtained indicated that procedural. They performed a hierarchical regression analysis for each of the outcome variable i.e. job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Procedural justice was not found to be related to job satisfaction but it was significantly related to organization commitment. Prior work by Tyler (e.g., Tyler, 1990) argues that procedural justice has stronger relationships with support for institutions than does distributive justice.

Distributive justice and job satisfaction

H1: There is a positive relationship between Distributive justice and Job Satisfaction

1. A.Ismail and A.Girardi (2009), examines the relationship between distributive justice (such as pay design) and job satisfaction. They surveyed 190 individuals from employees who have worked in Malaysian pubic community colleges. Empirical studies conducted by Bloom (1999) and Sharsfi eld-Baldwin (1996) found that assigned salary to employees established on proper distributive rules (e.g., seniority, level of service, merit or contribution) has strongly invoked employees perception of distributive justice, this could lead to higher job satisfaction. If their input is more than the output then the employees will feel that they are treated unfairly. Subsequently, it may lead to lower job satisfaction and if they perceive their pay as fair, this feeling may lead to higher job satisfaction. Their research led to a positive relationship between distributive justice and job satisfaction.

2. S.Usmani and Dr. Jamal (2013) explores the relationship between distributive justice and job satisfaction on banking employees. The study investigated this relationship in the Pakistani environment, particularly, the employees in the banking sector. Employee views were taken to evaluate whether fairness prevails in the organization or not and furthermore whether this fairness affect their satisfaction level on the job. The results show that significant relationship exists between distributive justice and job satisfaction. A meta-analysis found that distributive justice is a crucial predictor of job satisfaction (Colquitt et al., 2001). Distributive justice in theory is characterized as the fairness related to the distribution of resources and decision outcomes. This finding was related to Herzberg two factors theory (e.g. Herzberg et al., 1959; Thomas, 2000) according to which hygiene factors including salary rewarded the minimum employee jobs expectation and dissatisfaction was the result of absence of this factor.

3. R.Aslam, S.Shumaila, S.Sadaqat, H.Bilal, M.Intizar (2012) identify the relationship between procedural justice and employees vital work-related behavior i.e., job

satisfaction. Education sector was selected for this research study and sample was consisted of 250 teachers. A source of motivation for employees is the fair distribution of rewards means when they observe rewards to be linked with level of work efforts, employees feel satisfied in their job. Tepper (2000) found that employees view of procedural justice explained effects on job satisfaction when abusive supervision acted as mediator. Previous research showed that distributive justice acted as mediating variable between job satisfactions. The results of this study support previous studies. There is positive and significant relationship between procedural justice and overall job satisfaction which means procedural justice, resulted in overall job satisfaction.

Procedural Justice and organizational commitment

H1: There is a significant relationship between procedural justice and organizational commitment. 1. 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. The design for this study is a survey research design which measured two variables which is the independent variable and the dependent variable. The independent variable is procedural justice and the dependent variable is organizational commitment. A sample size of two hundred and fifty was drawn using stratified sampling technique stratified on the basis of management staff, senior staff, and junior staff of the company. Two hundred and fifteen questionnaires were retrieved and found usable for analysis. The type of data that was used for the study was primary data. The primary data was collected using questionnaire so as to enable the researcher obtain accurate and adequate information relating to the research work. The questionnaire was divided into four sections. Section A measured the demographics of the respondents which include age, sex, marital status, educational qualification, etc., B measured procedural justice, C measured distributive justice and D measured organizational commitment. There are 124 (57.7%) male respondents and 91(42.3%) female respondents. It also shows that 55(25.6%) of the respondents are between 18 to 25 years, 117(54.4%) of the respondents are between the age of 26 to 35 years, 36(16.7%) of the respondents are between the age of 36 to 45 years and 7(3.3%) of the respondents are between the age of 46 to 55 years. The marital status of the respondents also show that 93(43.3%) of the respondents are single, 112(52.1%) are married, 9(5.0%) of the respondents are divorced while 10(4.6%) respondents are separated. The result shows that the mean value of 28.7204 for procedural justice and 59.1991 for organizational commitment falls in between their minimum and maximum values. The standard error however was low with their values being 5.06458 and 8.42661. From the correlation table, it indicates clearly that there is a significant relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment with correlation being significant at 1

per cent and P<0.05. This was shown from the table based on the two tailed test result with P = 0.00 the result is significant and hence we accept the hypothesis. The research revealed that there was a significant difference between procedural justice and organizational commitment. Based on the analyses, it can be concluded that procedural justice could have a role in making employees committed in their organizations.

H1: Procedural justice has an influence on organizational commitment 2. Participants in the study consisted of non-supervisory employees of a five star hotel. A total of 236 questionnaires were distributed. The drop-off and pick-up method was used in which respondents were given two weeks to answer the questionnaires. A total 161responses were obtained representing a response rate of 58.2%. In terms of gender 57.1% were males and 42.9% were females. 64% of participants were married. The mean age was almost 33 years. The predictor variable used in the study is procedural justice. For that reason an index of procedural justice was developed which included 15 items. Responses to the items were made on a 7- point scale (for 1 being strongly disagree & 7 being strongly agree). All items were summed and divided by 15 to arrive at a summary indicator of an employees perceptions of procedural justice. Higher mean scores indicated higher procedural justice. The reliability coefficient for the measure was 0.902. Some of the items were negatively phrased and had to be reverse-coded. The mean value for the procedural justice was found to be 5.01 with a standard deviation of .81. On the other hand organizational commitment had a slightly higher mean value of 5.39 with a S.D of 0.66.this shows that procedural justice had a significant and positive effect on organizational commitment with a beta of 0.300, p<0.01. Moreover the result says they procedural justice is an important determinant of employees commitment to that hotel. The use of fair formal procedures and fair treatment by the authorities in enacting those procedures indicate that the authority within the hotel respect the right and dignity of each employee. The result supports the hypothesis.

H1: Procedural justice has an impact job commitment 3. A total of 200 questionnaires were randomly distributed amount a sports federations workers. 165 filled questionnaires were returned and finally 131 were conformed. The major instruments (procedural justice & organizational commitment) were used to examine the research hypothesis. The scale of the questions were from 1 to 7 with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree, for the procedural justice. On the other hand for the job satisfaction the scale was from 1 to 5 with 1 being lowest and 5 being highest. According to the results procedural justice has a direct effect on overall job commitment unfair perception can cause negative reactions to the organization, in consequence of weak job commitment procedural justice has an obvious and strengthening effect on the attitudinal and behaviour variables including organizational commitment. The result verifies the hypothesis.

Procedural Justice and job commitment

H1: There is a significant relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment. 1. The design for this study is a survey research design which measured independent variable and the dependent variable. The independent variable is distributive justice and dependent variable is organizational commitment. For the purpose of this research work sample size of two hundred and fifty on the basis of management staff, senior staff, and junior staff of the company. Two hundred and fifty questionnaires were retrieved and found usable for analysis. The type of data that was used for the study was primary data. The primary data was collected using questionnaire so as to enable the researcher obtain Accurate and adequate information relating to the research work. The result shows that the mean value of 28.7204 for distributive justice and 59.1991 for Organizational commitment falls in between their minimum and maximum values. The standard error however was low with their values being 5.06458 and 8.42661. From the correlation table, it indicates clearly that there is a significant relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment with correlation being significant at 1 per cent and P<0.05. This was shown from the table based on the test result with P = 0.00 the result is significant and hence we accept the hypothesis.

H1: Distributive justice is positively related to organizational commitment. 2. Sample for the present study consisted of 128 employees working in a medical institute. A 67.36% response rate (128 out of 190 possible respondents) was obtained. The gender composition of the sample was 61.71% male (N = 79) and 38.28% female (N = 49). The average age of the respondents was 30.40 years (SD = 3.25). On average, respondents had worked in their present jobs for 32.05 months (SD = 25.31). Distributive justice was also positively correlated with Organization commitment (r = .91, p < .01). Distributive justice is significantly related to organization commitment (= .42, p< .01)

H1: Higher levels of distributive justice are associated with higher levels of organizational commitment. 3. The data were collected by a school district as a part of their own internal research projects. The district used a survey research company to collect responses. The initial sample consisted of a total of 9,767 email addresses. To examine the relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment, an OLS regression equation was calculated. Given the hypothesis, distributive justice was regressed on organizational commitment. The regression model Commitment = (Distributive Justice) was used for testing the model fit. The model indicated that distributive justice was a significant predictor of organizational commitment (p < 0.001) and accounted for 12% of the variance in organizational commitment. This result supports the hypothesis that higher levels of distributive justice are associated with higher levels of organizational commitment.

References Cohn, S. E, White, S., O., & Sanders, J., (Oct., 2000) Distributive and Procedural Justice in Seven Nations, Law and Human Behaviour, 24 (5), 553-579. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32,115-130. Kumar, K, Bakhshi, A & Rani, E, (Oct, 2009), Organizational Justice Perceptions as Predictor of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment, The IUP Journal of Management Research, 8 (10), 24-37. Niehoff, B.P., and Moorman, R.H.(1993). The role of justice in mediating the Relationship between monitoring and Fairness in performance monitoring: Organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556. Fernandes, C. and Awamleh, R. (2006). Impact of organizational justice in an expatriate work environment, Management Research News, 29 (11), 701-712. Elanain, H.M.A. (2009), Job characteristics, work attitudes and behaviors in a non-western context: Distributive justice as a mediator, Journal of Management Development, 28(5), 457 477.