Organizational justice andemployee engagement

Exploring the linkage in public sectorbanks in India

Piyali Ghosh, Alka Rai and Apsha SinhaSchool of Management Studies, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology,

Allahabad, India

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore whether perceptions of distributive, proceduraland interactional justice are related to employee engagement, as an extension of theantecedents-consequences model of Saks (2006), and to examine the possibility of inter-relationshipsbetween these three dimensions of justice.Design/methodology/approach – A survey of 210 employees of public sector banks in Indiacovered measures of job and organization engagement (OE) proposed by Saks (2006) and the scaleon distributive, procedural and interactional justice developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993).The relationships between justice perceptions and engagement were analysed using correlations andhierarchical regression analysis.Findings – Results show that distributive, procedural and interactional are inter-related with eachother. Further, distributive and interactional justice take precedence over procedural justice indetermining job engagement, while distributive justice plays the most important role in determiningOE, followed by procedural and interactional justice.Practical implications – By highlighting the inter-relationships among the three dimensions ofjustice, this study offers useful insights into the underlying processes through which job and OE canbe improved through these inter-relationships. Findings also highlight the application of concepts likerelative deprivation in Indian public sector banks to increase the engagement levels of their employees.Originality/value – This paper adds to the very small number of studies that have investigated therole of interactional justice in enhancing job and OEs. It has also established inter-relationships betweenthe three dimensions of organizational justice and their individual roles in determining job and OEs.

Keywords Quantitative, Employee engagement, Distributive justice, Interactional justice,Job engagement, Procedural justice, Organizational engagement

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe issue of justice at workplace has etched a dominant place for itself in literature.Several studies indicate that an increased sense of justice among employees canhave a positive impact on various aspects of organizational behaviour, such as worksatisfaction (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992; Bhupatkar, 2003; McCain et al., 2010),organizational commitment (Folger and Konovsky, 1989; McLean, 2009; Wang et al.,2010; Crow et al., 2012; Suliman and Kathairi, 2013), organizational trust (Saunders andThornhill, 2003; McLean, 2009), organizational citizenship behaviour (Moorman, 1991;Bhupatkar, 2003; Muhammad, 2004; Orlowska, 2011) and employee performance(Alder and Tompkins, 1997; Wang et al., 2010; Suliman and Kathairi, 2013), andthus affect customers’ satisfaction and loyalty. Therefore, understanding how peoplemake judgments about justice in their organizations and how they respond toperceived justice or injustice is a major issue, especially to develop an understanding oforganizational behaviour (Maleki and Taheri, 2012). Scholars have generally identified

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Received 21 August 2013Revised 20 February 2014Accepted 7 April 2014

Personnel ReviewVol. 43 No. 4, 2014pp. 628-652r Emerald Group Publishing Limited0048-3486DOI 10.1108/PR-08-2013-0148

628

PR43,4

two major perspectives of justice research: distributive justice and procedural justice(Suliman and Kathairi, 2013), and on further extension, justice is proposed to have twomore dimensions, namely, interpersonal justice and informational justice (Colquitt,2001). Fairness research focuses on who gets what (distributive justice), how goodsare assigned ( procedural justice), and the interpersonal treatment received along theway (interactional justice) (Cropanzano et al., 2002).

The purpose of this research is to explore whether perceptions of distributive,procedural and interactional justice are related to employee engagement. We havestructured this paper as follows: we begin with a review of literature on employeeengagement and on organizational justice together with its dimensions, followed bya section on the inter-relationship between these dimensions of organizational justice.We have also built up our argument on the linkage between organizational justice andemployee engagement on the basis of past research. Thereafter we have discussed theobjectives of the study, the methodology adopted and the results obtained. The paperconcludes with the managerial implications of the study, with a focus on contributionto research, and the study’s limitations and scope for further research in the domain oforganizational justice.

Employee engagementEmployee engagement has been a subject of extensive research in recent years.With its initiation in practitioner literature and consulting firms (the most notablebeing the Gallup Organization), the concept of employee engagement has graduallygained grounds in academic literature.

The very first contribution to the academic literature on engagement is the seminalwork on personal engagement by Kahn (1990, 1992), who is regarded as the “academicparent of the employee engagement work” (Welch, 2011, p. 332). Kahn (1990, p. 694)defines personal engagement as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves totheir work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically,cognitively and emotionally during role performances”. Kahn (1990) in fact argued thatthree psychological conditions are necessary for engagement: meaningfulness,safety and availability. Rothbard (2001, p. 656) defines engagement as a psychologicalpresence, and proposes that it involves two critical components: attention and absorption.

Nelson and Simmons (2003) view employee engagement as a situation whenemployees feel positive emotions towards their work, find their work to be personallymeaningful, consider their workload to be manageable, and have hope about the futureof their work. Baumruk (2004), Shaw (2005) and Richman (2006) define engagement asthe emotional/intellectual commitment of an employee to the organization. Researcherson burnout (e.g. Maslach et al., 2001; Harter et al., 2002; May et al., 2004) have visualizedengagement as the opposite or positive antithesis of burnout. According to Maslachet al. (2001), engagement is characterized by energy, involvement and efficacy, thedirect opposite of the three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism and inefficacy(Saks, 2006). More recent research has brought forth newer dimensions of engagement.For example, Macey and Schneider (2008) have defined employee engagement as asynthesis of aspects of the self (i.e. trait, state and behaviour) with situational aspects(i.e. organizational conditions). Albrecht (2010, p. 5) has coined employee engagementas “a positive work-related psychological state characterized by a genuine willingnessto contribute to organizational success”.

Saks (2006) observes that employee engagement has been defined in differentways and these definitions and measures often sound like other better known and

629

Employeeengagement

established constructs like organization commitment and organization citizenshipbehaviour (Robinson et al., 2004). Extant literature also talks aplenty of similar yetdifferent constructs like work engagement (WE) and organization engagement (OE).Saks (2006) research, for instance, suggests that engagement of employees with theirorganization and their work are distinct constructs, with different sets of antecedentsand consequences. This could be because the underlying psychological conditionsleading to each construct may be different. With the premise that the two mostdominant roles for most organizational members are their work role and their role as amember of an organization (Kahn, 1990), we have built our proposition that employeeengagement can be considered in two different constructs: work and OE.

WEWE is a “multi-dimensional latent motivational construct” (Alfes et al., 2013, p. 2610),described as “[y] a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized byvigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74; Schaufeli and Bakker,2010). WE has been defined by Schaufeli and Bakker (2010, p. 22) as “the psychologicalstate that accompanies the behavioral investment of personal energy”. It depicts howworkers experience their work: as stimulating and energetic and something to which theyreally want to devote their time and efforts (the vigour component); as a significant andmeaningful pursuit (the component of dedication); and as engrossing and something onwhich they are fully concentrated (the component of absorption) (Bakker et al., 2011). WEis characterized by a high level of energy and strong identification with one’s work(Bakker et al., 2008). It is a dynamic, dialectical relationship that exists between the personwho drives personal energies ( physical, cognitive, emotional and mental) into his/herwork role on the one hand, and the work role that allows this person to express him orherself on the other (Kahn, 1990, 1992). Sample items for the Utrecht Work EngagementScale (UWES) (Schaufeli et al., 2002) include: “When I get up in the morning, I feel likegoing to work” (vigour); “I am proud of the work I do” (dedication); and “I am immersed inmy work” (absorption).

Organizational engagementSaks (2006) describes OE as employees’ deep involvement in their organization becausethey feel proud to be associated and to be part of the organization. He concludesthat OE is a person’s attitude and attachment to his/her company. Sample items forOE scale (Saks, 2006) are like: “One of the most exciting things for me is gettinginvolved with things happening in this organization”; and “I am highly engaged in thisorganization”.

Review of justice-engagement literature prompts us to conclude that there is ajustice-engagement literature has a clear majority of research (e.g. Kittredge, 2010,Inoue et al., 2010, Karatepe, 2011, Gupta and Kumar, 2012, Li, 2012, Strom et al., 2013)that has concentrated on WE rather than OE (e.g. Andrew and Sofian, 2012, Biswaset al., 2013, Malinen et al., 2013). However, in a global work environment characterizedby uncertainty and instability, attitude towards an organization, rather than one’sspecific job, may be affected and, in turn, have implications for organization (Malinenet al., 2013). This clearly asserts the growing relevance of OE. Further given that thepotentially influential nature of organizational engagement on importantorganizational variables warrants further research (Saks, 2006), we have includedboth work and OEs in our study to draw useful implications of organizational justice toenhance both these constructs of employee engagement.

630

PR43,4

Organizational justiceFairness is a core value in organizations (Konovsky, 2000); whether it is a promotiondecision, or assignment of tasks, or allocation of rewards, or any other type of socialexchange, matters of fairness are bound to arise in any organization (Coetzee, 2005).The terms “justice”, “fairness” and “equity” have been used interchangeably in literature(Adams, 1963; Leventhal, 1980; Moorman, 1991). Any event, action or decision is judged asfair or unfair based upon an individual’s beliefs about the decision and his/her value ornormative system, as it relates to those beliefs (Bies, 1987). People are social beings andorganizations therefore have to create settings in which employees are able to interactsocially (Coetzee, 2005). Literature has explored the different sorts of transactions thatoccur among people at work (Suliman and Kathairi, 2013), and justice is an inevitablecomponent of such transactions. “Organizational justice”, a term coined by WendellFrench in 1964, is commonly used by organizational psychologists to refer to the just, fairand ethical manner in which organizations treat their employees (Greenberg, 1990;Cropanzano, 1993); it is based on fairness perceptions (Adams, 1965). In an organizationalset up, justice is about the rules and social norms governing how outcomes (e.g. rewardsand punishments) should be distributed, what are the procedures used for making suchdistribution decisions, and how people are treated interpersonally (Bies and Tripp, 1995).Organizational justice is concerned with “the ways in which employees determine if theyhave been treated fairly in their jobs and the ways in which those determinations influenceother work-related variables” (Moorman, 1991, p. 845). It influences the attitude andbehaviour of employees and consequently their performance and the organization’ssuccess (Coetzee, 2005).

Organizational justice has been researched extensively and has been subject to anongoing conflict about its various dimensions and if such dimensions can bedistinguished from each other ( Johnson, 2007). Various contemporary theorists haveargued that justice may range from a single dimension to four dimensions (Colquittet al., 2005). Research on Greenberg’s (1993) four-factor model of justice, which includesdistributive justice, procedural justice and two classes of interactional justice (i.e.interpersonal and informational justice), suggests that these four dimensions aredistinct constructs that can, and should ideally be, empirically distinguished from oneanother (Blader and Tyler, 2000; Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001). The present studyhas, however, used the three-factor model of justice (i.e. distributive, procedural andinteractional justice), regarded by Colquitt (2001) as the second most commonly usedconceptualization after the four-factor model.

Distributive justiceThis dimension of justice has its roots in the much-celebrated equity theory suggestedby Adams (1965), and is based on the idea that social behaviour is conditioned bythe distribution of outcomes. Typical examples include perceptions of human resourcemanagement practices, such as hiring decisions, performance appraisals, raise requests,decisions about downsizing, layoffs, etc. ( Johnson, 2007). A large volume of extantliterature on distributive justice is directed towards fairness in the distribution and/orallocation of outcomes (e.g. Homans, 1961; Adams, 1965; Deutsch, 1985; Niehoff andMoorman, 1993; Colquitt, 2001; Nabatchi et al., 2007). Niehoff and Moorman (1993)opine that distributive justice is the degree to which rewards are allocated in anequitable manner. It refers to the perceived fairness of managerial decisions relative tothe distribution of outcomes such as pay (Colquitt, 2001) and promotions (Daileyl andKirk, 1992). Distributive justice is said to exist when the distribution of outcomes such

631

Employeeengagement

as compensation, benefits, and other rewards meet employees’ expectations vis-a-vistheir inputs (Clay-Warner et al., 2005; Simpson and Kaminski, 2007; Chou, 2009).

Procedural justiceProcedural justice research emphasizes that individuals pay particular attentionto and place importance on decision-making procedures. This dimension of justicerefers to people’s perceptions of the fairness of the rules and procedures used todetermine the outcomes they receive at workplace (Thibaut and Walker, 1975; Austinand Tobiasen, 1984; Kressel and Pruitt, 1989; Suliman and Kathairi, 2013). Folger andCropanzano, (1998, p. 26) define procedural justice as “fairness issues concerning themethods, mechanisms, and processes used to determine outcome”. When employeesview decision-making procedures to be accurate, consistent, unbiased and correctable,they perceive organizational systems as following processes that meet justice criteria(Colquitt et al., 2006).

Thibaut and Walker (1975) and Lind and Tyler (1988) found that perceivedfairness of procedures affects satisfaction with those procedures, independent of theiroutcomes. In other words, when individuals believed that the procedures were fair,they were more satisfied with the outcome they received, even when the outcomewas unfavourable. This is because such perception of fairness implies that employeesare valuable to the organization. This boosts their self-esteem and self-worth andassures them that they are being given due attention in return for their services(Colquitt and Chertkoff, 2002).

Interactional justiceBeyond distributive and procedural justice, Bies and Moag (1986) have suggestedanother construct, i.e. interactional justice, as the third dimension of organizationaljustice. Previously deemed to be a feature of procedural justice (Colquitt, 2001),interactional justice has eventually emerged as an independent construct, considered tobe distinct and meaningfully different from the former (Bies and Moag, 1986; Folgerand Cropanzano, 1998). Beyond their concern about outcomes (i.e. distributivejustice) and procedures (i.e. procedural justice), employees of an organization alsoevaluate whether they are treated by others, including colleagues and supervisors,with respect and dignity (Crow et al., 2012). Interactional justice thus refers to thequality of interpersonal processes and treatment of individuals (i.e. were they spoken towith sincerity and sensitivity) as well as the extent to which the reasons behindthe outcome are explained (Bies and Moag, 1986). This dimension of justice deals withthe human side of organizational practices and, as such, is related to thecommunication aspects (e.g. politeness, honesty and respect) between the source andrecipient of justice (Bies and Moag, 1986; Tyler and Bies, 1990). It is concerned withhow individuals in charge of “allocating resources and rewards in the workplacebehave towards the recipients” (Chou, 2009, p. 72).

Though research has identified two sub-categories of interactional justice, i.e.informational and interpersonal justice, in the present study we have used a singleconstruct of interactional justice rather than dividing it into these two sub-categories.

Inter-relationship between distributive, procedural and interactional justiceDistributive justice and procedural justice are fairly well accepted as distinctconstructs (Cropanzano and Prehar, 1999; Konovsky, 2000). There is indeed a largevolume of literature that is devoted to the relationship between these two dimensions of

632

PR43,4

justice. Some scholars (e.g. Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Fryxell and Gordon, 1989)suggest that there is a significant correlation between procedural and distributivejustice perceptions. Procedural justice has been considered to be important becauseof its impact on distributional justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988). Robbins et al. (2000)are of the view that procedural justice judgments are likely to influence perceptions ofdistributive justice, but not the other way round. To McFarlin and Sweeney (1992),procedural justice appears to be more important than distributive justice in predictingoutcomes related to evaluating a company as an institution, whereas distributivejustice is more important in predicting personal outcomes. Whereas distributive justicefocuses on outcomes, procedural justice emphasizes on the process that leads to theresults (Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991; Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997). Membersof an organization may perceive an outcome as being unfair, though they might agreewith the process of the decision making itself, or vice versa (Tyler, 1990). However, theself-interest model by Lind and Tyler (1988) views procedural justice as primarilyimportant in its effects on one’s perception of distributive justice. “Fair procedures arevalued because they ultimately lead to favorable outcomes” (Lipponen et al., 2004,p. 276). That is to say, employees who view the procedures of their organization as fairare likely to view the outcomes of those procedures as fair and just.

Sheppard et al (1992) argue that procedural justice is a means to distributive justice;according to them, procedural justice concerns with the rules and procedures followedto reward employees, and distributive justice is the second step, reflecting the degree towhich employees perceive such a reward distribution (arising out of procedural justice)as equitable on the basis of the performance inputs. Studies (Tyler and Caine, 1981;Alexander and Ruderman, 1987) that have looked simultaneously at the impact ofdistributive and procedural justice judgments have found a predominant influenceof procedural justice on people’s reactions in groups.

However, in this study we have not attempted at establishing the influential effect ofany one of these dimensions of justice on the other. Instead we simply hypothesize that:

H1. Distributive justice will be positively related to procedural justice.

However, a distinction between procedural and interactional justice is not widelyaccepted (Bobocel and Holmvall, 2001; Cropanzano and Ambrose, 2001). Bies (2001,p. 99) argues that interactional and procedural justice are separate constructs because“there is consistent evidence that interactional justice and procedural justice affectbehaviour variables differently”. Interactional justice is a distinct perception of fairnessin the interpersonal treatment of employees by the organization, while proceduraljustice is related to the fairness of the procedures used for resolving disputes andallocating outcomes (Bies and Moag, 1986; Pillai et al., 1999; Bies, 2001, 2005). Sinceprocedural justice is defined as the fairness of procedures that are designed by theorganization and applied by the supervisor, it can be viewed as a joint function oforganizational procedures and supervisor behaviour regarding the application of theseprocedures (Suliman and Kathairi, 2013). Scandura (1999) differentiates proceduraland interactional justice by assuming that supervisors’ behaviours can affect onlyinteractional justice and not procedural justice. The author is of the opinion that ifmembers receive correct communication from their supervisors about reasons fordistribution of rewards, then they would be able to perceive interactional justice, evenif they belong to different groups. It is through proper communication (i.e. interactionaljustice) that perceptions of procedural and distributive injustice (in cases where

633

Employeeengagement

employees make social comparisons) can be changed (Scandura, 1999). Accordingly,we hypothesize that:

H2. Procedural justice will be positively related to interactional justice.

No theoretical evidence could, however, be found on the relationship between distributivejustice and interactional justice in the extant literature on justice. For instance,a meta-analytic review of 183 organizational justice studies spread over 25 years byColquitt et al. (2001) has also not provided any substantiation of this relationship.

Rationale for connecting link between engagement and justiceThe social exchange theory (SET) (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005) provides a strongtheoretical foundation to explain why employees choose to be more or less engaged intheir work and with their organization. Hence it serves as a well-established theoreticalframework for explaining how people’s perception about organizational justice mayinfluence their engagement with their work and organization. This theory argues thatobligations are generated through a series of interactions between parties who are in astate of reciprocal interdependence. A basic premise of SET is that relationships evolveover time into trusting, loyal and mutual commitments as long as the parties involvedabide by certain “rules” of exchange (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).

Research on organizational justice is vast, and “has been guided by the notion thatemployees who believe they are treated fairly will be favourably disposed towards theorganization and engage in prosocial behaviour on behalf of the organization” (Barlingand Phillips, 1993, p. 649). Organizational justice, which represents employees’observed fairness at the workplace, governs their social exchange relationships(Kashyap et al., 2007). Extant research has indicated that within the framework of theSET, organizational justice would be directly associated with the quality of socialexchange between individuals and their organizations (Bhatnagar and Biswas, 2010)and in turn may lead to employee engagement (Biswas et al., 2013). Therefore, whenemployees have high perceptions of justice in their organization, they are also morelikely to feel obliged to be fair in how they perform their roles by giving more ofthemselves through greater levels of engagement (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Onthe contrary, low perceptions of fairness are likely to cause employees to withdraw anddisengage themselves from their work roles (Biswas et al., 2013). Also, fairness andjustice constitute one of the work conditions in Maslach et al.’s (2001) engagementmodel, that is to say, positive perceptions of fairness can improve engagement(Maslach et al., 2001).

Engagement at work is frequently researched in the framework of jobdemands-resource ( JD-R) model, as lack of resources has been associated withemployee disengagement (Demerouti et al., 2001). Here, job resources refer to thephysical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job that are either/orfunctional in achieving work goals (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Further, procedural,distributive justice and interactional justice perceptions may be looked upon asresources which may be instrumental in enhancing employee engagement due to theirfunctional role in goal accomplishment.

Fairness has considered by many researchers as one of the key predictors ofemployees’ affective states and behaviours. Fairness and justice feature as one of thesix work-life factors that lead to WE as a work outcome in burnout literature (Maslachet al., 2001). A lack of fairness can accentuate burnout, while a positive perception of

634

PR43,4

fairness can improve engagement (Maslach et al., 2001). A number of studies(e.g. Bies, 1987; Greenberg, 1989, 1990; Sheppard et al., 1992; Folger, 1993) show thatwhen employees believe organizational decisions and managerial actions are unfairor unjust, they experience feelings of anger, outrage and resentment, and may evenengage in acts of retribution or retaliation (Sheppard et al., 1992; Greenberg andScott, 1996; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997). On the contrary, when employees havehigh perception of justice in their organization, they are more likely to be fair in theirroles by giving more of themselves through greater levels of engagement (Saks, 2006),and reciprocate through exhibiting organizational citizenship behaviours (Organ,1988; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Skarlicki and Latham, 1996, 1997). Past studies(e.g. Greenberg, 1990) have also showed how organizational injustice could explaindisengagement of employees.

Because distributive justice focuses on outcomes, any unfairness perceived regardinga particular outcome is likely to affect employee emotions. Typical examples ofsuch emotions, as found in literature, are anger, happiness, guilt or pride (Weiss et al.,1999). Impact on cognitions includes cognitively distorted inputs and outcomes ofhimself/herself or the other (Adams, 1965; Austin and Walster, 1974; Walster et al., 1978).All such emotions and cognitions ultimately impact employee behaviour, leading to theirwithdrawal or poor performance. Distributive justice has been shown to be significantlyand positively related to perceived organizational support (POS) (Wayne et al., 2002), paysatisfaction and general work satisfaction (DeConinck et al., 1996). Lack of distributivejustice has been associated with employee theft (Greenberg, 1990). Gagne et al. (2007)found that autonomous work motivation mediated the relation between distributivejustice and work satisfaction, and the relation between distributive justice and turnoverintentions. Elanain (2008) has tested the mediating impact of distributive justice on therelationship between work characteristics given by Hackman and Oldham (1975) andwork outcomes (work satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions).Findings showed that distributive justice fully mediates the relationship between skillvariety and work satisfaction and between task identity and turnover intentions. Reviewof extant literature prompts us to hypothesize that:

H3. Distributive justice will be positively related to work and OEs.

While distributive justice pertains to one’s perception of the fairness of decisionoutcomes, procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the means and processesused to determine the amount and distribution of resources (Colquitt, 2001; Rhoadeset al., 2001). It has been argued that distributive justice predicts satisfaction with theoutcome (i.e. pay satisfaction), whereas procedural justice influences the evaluation of theorganization and its authorities (i.e. trust in supervision and organizational commitment)(Cropanzano and Folger, 1989; Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993). Saks (2006) argued thatperceptions of procedural and distributive justice would relate to both work and OE.However, he found evidence only to support that procedural justice had a positiveeffect on OE. In another study by Gupta and Kumar (2012), both distributive andprocedural justice have been found to impact WE equally; for instance, employees whoperceive procedural justice positively show greater absorption, and those who perceivedistributive justice positively exhibit greater dedication and vigour.

Ram and Prabhakar (2011) found perception of procedural justice to be positivelyand strongly related to perception of distributive justice and POS, indicating thatsupervisors played a major role in ensuring implementation of procedures in a fair and

635

Employeeengagement

unbiased manner. A weak relation between perceived supervisor support (PSS) andperception of distributive justice revealed that supervisors did not have absolutecontrol over distribution of benefits and rewards and also in ensuring the reach of theprocedures that were implemented. Perception of procedural justice was related toemployee engagement and strongly related with work satisfaction, organizationalcommitment and OCB, whereas perception of distributive justice was found to bepositively related to employee engagement. Strong correlations were found betweenwork satisfaction, organizational commitment and OCB with perceptions of proceduraland distributive justice and employee engagement. In another study by Kittredge(2010), procedural justice was significant in predicting vigour, but was not significantin predicting the other two dimensions of WE proposed by Schaufeli et al. (2002),namely, dedication and absorption. Consistent with Saks (2006), Kittredge’s (2010)study found that procedural justice predicted OE. On the basis of overall literaturereviewed, we hypothesize that:

H4. Procedural justice will be positively related to work and OEs.

Given that employees maintain two exchange relationships, one with their organizationand another with their immediate supervisor (Masterson et al., 2000), procedural justiceis found to be related to organization-related outcomes, whereas interactional justice isrelated to managerial-related outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001). As interactional justiceas a key environmental factor in managerial-related outcomes, it may play a directiverole in strengthening the relation between leader/supervisor and engagement.

Studies have showed that perceptions of interactional justice are positively related tocommitment to the supervisor, leader-member exchange and supervisory satisfaction(Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). Unbiased and respective attitudes of supervisors,which are an essential aspect of interactional justice, are likely to lead to greaterperception of social support at work among workers (Fujishiro and Heaney, 2009), whichis an already established antecedent of employee engagement (e.g. Schaufeli and Bakker,2004; Hakanen et al., 2006; Llorens et al., 2006). Interactional justice also includes theprovision of information about actual decision-making procedures (Bies and Moag, 1986)that allows workers to have better control over their work. Job control (Demerouti et al.,2001; Hakanen et al., 2006; Llorens et al., 2006; Bakker et al., 2007) has been reported to bea determinant of WE in the studies conducted within the framework of the JD-R model(Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).

Hence we hypothesize that:

H5. Interactional justice will be positively related to work and OEs.

Taken together, distributive and interactional justice have been found to be significantpredictors of employee engagement, unlike procedural justice, in a study of bankemployees of Pakistan (Alvi and Abbasi, 2012). A study of employees from hi-techservice companies in China has shown all these three dimensions to be significantlyand positively related to WE (Li, 2012).

Objectives of the studyOur study aims at examining the possibility of the inter-relationships of employees’perceptions of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Further, we wouldinvestigate the individual roles of these three dimensions of justice as antecedents of

636

PR43,4

both work and OEs, as an extension of the antecedents-consequences model of Saks(2006). The objectives of this study may thus be summed up to be:

. examining the inter-relationships between distributive, procedural andinteractional justice; and

. investigating the individual influences of distributive justice, procedural justiceand interactional justice on work and OEs.

Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model showing the inter-relationship between the threedimensions of organizational justice and their relation with work and OEs.

MethodThe survey was conducted across 22 branches of 15 public sector banks in north India.Ambrose and Cropanzano (2003) suggest that individuals acquire more informationand experience with procedures and outcomes over time, which eventually affect theinfluence of procedural and distributive justice on their organizational attitudes.Selection of sample was hence guided by the notion that a time span of less than a yearwould probably be insufficient to develop perceptions of distributive, procedural andinteractional justice at workplace. Hence an initial round of screening eliminated thoseemployees who have been with their employer for less than a year, and the surveyquestionnaire was distributed to 284 bank employees of various public sector banks inIndia. The questionnaire was appended with a cover letter mentioning the purpose ofthe study and the affiliation of the researchers. It also assured the participants ofanonymity and confidentiality. The process of data collection took around a month, andthe completed questionnaires were personally collected. However, 74 questionnaireshad some missing data and hence could not be used further. The final number of usablequestionnaires stood at 210, registering a response rate of 73.9 per cent.

Demographic data in Table I suggest that the sample is somewhat balanced withrespect to gender distribution (female¼ 44.3 per cent). With respect to age, the highestrepresentation is of the age group of below 30 years (46.3 per cent), and the lowest at17.2 per cent of the age group of more than 45 years. The composition of respondents interms of length of service with their respective banks reflected that both the shortest

JobEngagement

OrganizationEngagement

Distributive

Justice

Procedural

Justice

Interactional

Justice

Figure 1.Conceptual model of

organizational justice andemployee engagement

637

Employeeengagement

and longest tenures with respective employers have registered equal representation at15.8 per cent, while 36.9 per cent of the sample has revealed to have been with theiremployer for a period of one to three years. In terms of level of management, majorityof the respondents (50.2 per cent) represent middle management, followed by those injunior level (37.4 per cent).

Criterion variablesWE. We have measured WE by using the nine-items short form of UWES suggestedby Schaufeli et al. (2002). The measure is widely used in justice-engagement literature(e.g. Li et al., 2010; Inoue et al., 2010; Kittredge, 2010; Karatepe, 2011; Li, 2012; Strom et al.,2013) and also in Indian context (Gupta and Kumar, 2012). Three aspects of WE havebeen measured in this study, namely, vigour (a¼ 0.831), dedication (a¼ 0.847) andabsorption (a¼ 0.736), Examples include: “At work I feel bursting with energy” (vigour);“I am proud of the work I do” (dedication); “I am immersed in my work” (absorption).

OE. The items used to measure OE were taken from the six-item scale (a¼ 0.937)suggested by Saks (2006). The scale is widely used in justice-engagement literature(e.g. Andrew and Sofian, 2012, Biswas et al., 2013, Malinen et al., 2013) and also inIndian context (Biswas et al., 2013). It includes items like “I am highly engaged in thisorganization” and “One of the most exciting things for me is getting involved withthings happening in this organization”.

Predictor variablesThe 20-item scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) was used to measuredistributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice. This scale has beenused by Biswas et al. (2013) in Indian context. The measure was assessed on afive-point scale ranging from 0 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”.

Distributive justice. Distributive justice (a¼ 0.86) was measured with five itemsdesigned to measure the fairness of rewards. Sample items included: “I am fairly rewardedconsidering my responsibilities” and “I am fairly rewarded for the work I have done well”.

Procedural justice. Procedural justice (a¼ 0.69) was measured with six itemsdesigned to measure the fairness of procedures. Sample items are: “My organizationhas formal procedures designed to provide opportunities to appeal or challengedecisions” and “My organization has formal procedures designed to let all sidesaffected by a decision be represented”.

%

GenderMale 55.7Female 44.3AgeLess than 30 years 46.330-45 years 36.5More than 45 years 17.2Length of service with organizationLess than 1 year 15.81-3 years 36.93-6 years 31.5More than 6 years 15.8

Table I.Demographic profileof respondents

638

PR43,4

Interactional justice. Interactional justice (a¼ 0.88) was measured using nine itemsdesigned to measure the fairness of interactions. Examples of items included are: “Mysupervisor considers my viewpoint” and “My supervisor treats me with kindness andconsideration.”

Control variablesPrior studies in justice literature (e.g. Ang et al., 2003; Avolio et al., 2004) havedemonstrated that demographic variables like age, tenure and respondents’ educationallevel are potential predictors of the study criterion. Additionally, as an outcome of recentinterest in glass ceiling for women and its potential impact on perceptions of fairness,gender has also been used as a control variable in fairness research (e.g. Lemons andDanehower, 1996; Lemons and Jones, 2000). On the basis of such instances from pastresearch, the control variables of gender, age and length of service with the bank wereused in this study. Gender was coded 1 for men and 2 for women; age was coded 1 foro30 years, 2 for 30-45 years and 3 for more than 45 years. Tenure with the bank wascoded with 1¼ less than a year, 2¼ 1-3 years, 3¼ 3-6 years and 4¼more than 6 years.

ResultsTable II presents the means, standard deviations and correlations for the studyvariables. The correlation values support the hypotheses H1 and H2 that proceduraljustice is positively related with distributive (r¼ 0.580 at po0.01) and interactional(r¼ 0.624 at po0.01) justice. Another interesting correlation between distributiveand interactional justice (r¼ 0.645 at po0.01) is noticeable. Incidentally, previousliterature does not provide evidence of any correlation between these two dimensionsof justice and hence no associations between them was hypothesized in the study.Distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice were all found to besignificantly related to OE (r¼ 0.509, r¼ 0.538, r¼ 0.578, respectively, at po0.01) andWE (r¼ 0.569, r¼ 0.502, r¼ 0.591 at po0.01, respectively). Overall, these preliminaryfindings lend initial support to our hypotheses H3, H4 and H5 and give us theconfidence to proceed with the subsequent steps in analysis.

To perform a more rigorous examination of the hypotheses, hierarchical multipleregression was performed in the next step. Table III shows the results of the regressionanalysis predicting WE and OE. Control variables were entered in the first block andjustice variables were added in the second block to calculate the changes in R2. None ofthe control variables were found significant. When added into the equation, all threetypes of justice were found to be significant for OE but only distributive andinteractional justice were found significant for WE. Distributive justice predicted bothWE (b¼ 0.324, po0.01) and OE (b¼ 0.286, po0.01); we hence conclude that H3 isfully supported. Procedural justice predicted WE only. Hence H4 has been partiallysupported. H5 is fully supported as interactional justice is found to predict both WEand OE (b¼ 0.271, po0.01 and b¼ 0.216, po0.05, respectively). Looking at the R2

values for the models we may infer that the regression equations accounted for 48 percent of the variance in WE and 42 per cent of the variance in OE.

DiscussionThis research has examined distributive, procedural and interactional justice aspotential antecedents of work and OEs on a sample of employees of Indian publicsector banks. Banks play a dominant role in India’s financial system, and performanceof the banking sector is reflective of the growth pattern of the Indian economy

639

Employeeengagement

Mea

nS

D1

23

45

67

1.A

ge

ofem

plo

yee

1.71

0.74

42.

Gen

der

ofem

plo

yee

1.44

0.49

8�

0.13

13.

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

ew

ith

ban

k2.

470.

940

0.72

8**

�0.

154*

4.W

E3.

841.

220.

162*

�0.

119

0.16

9*5.

OE

3.55

0.73

70.

089

�0.

072

0.07

50.

734*

*6.

Dis

_Ju

st3.

360.

832

0.28

2**

0.01

60.

199*

*0.

569*

*0.

509*

*7.

Pro

c_Ju

st3.

280.

594

0.11

3�

0.07

20.

069

0.50

2**

0.53

8**

0.58

0**

8.In

ter_

Just

3.49

0.70

30.

140*

�0.

026

0.05

60.

591*

*0.

578*

*0.

645*

*0.

624*

*

Note

s:

SD

,st

and

ard

dev

iati

on;

JE,

job

eng

agem

ent;

OE

,or

gan

izat

ion

eng

agem

ent;

Dis

_Ju

st,

dis

trib

uti

ve

just

ice;

Pro

c_Ju

st,

pro

ced

ura

lju

stic

e;In

ter_

Just

,in

tera

ctio

nal

just

ice.

*,**

Cor

rela

tion

issi

gn

ific

ant

at0.

05an

d0.

01le

vel

,re

spec

tiv

ely

Table II.Means, standarddeviations andcorrelations of variables

640

PR43,4

as a whole. Arrival of new private and foreign banks has given an impetus to publicsector banks to be more competitive, effective and innovative in their approach(Shrivastava and Purang, 2011). Due to the increasing importance of human capital inthis sector, employee engagement in banks has also emerged as a major issue to beconsidered by researchers. However, no study could be found that has measuredemployees’ perception of justice dimensions on employee engagement in the Indianbanking sector. Therefore, this research was conducted to determine how theperception of organizational justice (distributive, procedural and interactional) atworkplace may influence work and OEs. All the three dimensions of justice werefound to have positively predicted OE, whereas only two of them (i.e. distributiveand interactional justice) predicted WE. Another set of robust findings is theinter-relationship found between these three dimensions of organizational justice.While each is conceptually and operationally different, all the three dimensions havebeen found to have a positive correlation with each other, as well as with work andOEs. The results thus support Saks’ (2006) finding of procedural justice anddistributive justice as antecedents of engagement. Overall, these results furtherdemonstrate and extend the positive work-related outcomes of organizational justice.

Our results show that distributive, procedural and interactional justice are related towork and OEs. We may hence infer that the distribution of rewards, organizationalpolicies and procedures, and interpersonal treatment by supervisors have theirindividual influence on employee engagement. Another unique finding of this study isthat distributive justice and interactional justice take precedence over proceduraljustice in determining WE. In their celebrated work relating burnout and engagement,Maslach et al. (2001) have argued that WE is associated with a sustainable workload,feelings of choice and control, appropriate reward and recognition, a supportive workcommunity, fairness and justice, and meaningfulness and valued work. We may thuscomprehend that WE is associated with both distributive justice (in terms ofappropriate rewards and recognition) and interactional justice (in terms of supportivework environment). Our finding that distributive justice and interactional justice aremore important in predicting WE thus seems to be in consonance with the definition ofWE by Maslach et al. (2001). Further, when an employee feels that the outcomes (salaryhike, rewards, etc.) are commensurate with the efforts put in, he/she reciprocates withgreater vigour and dedication and is more engaged ( physically, cognitively andemotionally) in his/her work (Gupta and Kumar, 2012). This upholds the relevance ofdistributive justice in affecting WE, which also has been substantiated in our study.

WE DR2 OE DR2

Control variablesAge of employee �0.142 �0.107Gender of employee �0.086 �0.053Length of service with the bank 0.095 0.035Predictor variablesDistributive justice 0.324** 0.286*Procedural justice 0.131 0.232*Interactional justice 0.271* 0.380 0.216** 0.390R2 0.480 0.428Adjusted R2 0.461 0.407

Notes: JE, job engagement; OE, organization engagement, *po0.01; **po0.05

Table III.Multivariate regressions

predicting job andorganization engagements

641

Employeeengagement

Our results suggest that in determining OE, distributive justice plays the mostimportant role, followed by procedural and interactional justice. OE reflects a person’sattitude and attachment to his/her organization (Saks, 2006), and is a different thoughrelated construct of WE. Our study marks a departure from that of Saks (2006),wherein only procedural justice is found to predict OE. We may relate our findings tothe psychological condition of safety associated with engagement/disengagement atwork (Kahn, 1990). The safety dimension involves social situations that are predictableand consistent. Such predictability and consistency of procedures may be related toassigning of rewards, resources, etc. at work. For organizations, it is hence especiallyimportant to be predictable and consistent in terms of the distribution of rewards, aswell as the procedures used to allocate them. Research on safety (Edmondson, 1996,1999; Whitener et al., 1998) proposes supervisory relations, co-worker relations andbehavioural norms to be the determinants of psychological safety.

Overall, we may conclude that all the three dimensions of justice have theirindividual effects on OE, and the same has been established in our study.

Managerial implications of the studyA key issue before organizations is how to promote the engagement level of theiremployees. Engagement has been receiving increased attention from researchers as animportant determinant of employee performance (Gruman and Saks, 2011). Not onlydoes employee engagement have the potential to significantly affect employeeretention, productivity and loyalty, but it is also a key link to customer satisfaction,company reputation and overall stakeholder value (Lockwood, 2007). Hence a key issuebefore organizations is how to promote the engagement level of their employees.

Keeping in perspective the benefits of an engaged workforce, the present research hassignificant implications for organizations, and in particular, organizational proceduresdeciding employee perception towards distributive, procedural and interactional justice.Overall, our findings can be understood in the framework of the SET, which suggests thatthe relationship between employees and an organization can be reciprocal. If employeeshave a better perception of organizational justice, and they feel they are treated justly, theyare likely to reciprocate by increasing their engagement levels (Saks, 2006). Towards thisend, Indian public sector banks should foster a work environment focusing onorganizational justice; this would encourage social exchange attitudes among employees(Bettencourt et al., 2005). In addition, based on the norm of reciprocity, employees expecttheir organization to recognize and reward their efforts. Therefore, banks should becommitted to recognizing employees’ efforts and offer financial and non-financial rewards(e.g. work-life benefits) to their employees based on the organizational standards.

Let us discuss the relevance of “relative deprivation” in context of distributivejustice here. The existence of “relative deprivation” brings to question fair sharing ofrewards or distributive justice (Adams, 1965). Distribution of outcomes like pay andpromotion in public sector banks may be designed in a fair and equitable manner inorder to enhance the perceptions of fairness of employees. Following McFarlin andSweeney (1992), who posit that distributive justice is a predictor of two personaloutcomes, i.e. pay satisfaction and work satisfaction, perceptions of distributive justiceamong employees may be enhanced by introducing innovative changes in the paystructure and also ensuring overall work satisfaction of the workforce.

Rahim et al. (2000) have laid down the criteria for procedural justice that include thepresence of formal procedures that: ensure decisions are based on accurate information,are applied consistently over time and across people, provide an opportunity to voice

642

PR43,4

one’s opinions during decision making, allow for the appeal of bad decisions, suppresspersonal bias on the part of decision makers, and ensure that decisions are made in amoral and ethical manner. Banks can hence ensure procedural justice by designing atransparent structure involving participation of employees in decision-makingprocedures. Further, existence of a robust grievance handling mechanism can helpenhance perception of distributive justice among employees.

Because interactional justice is determined by the interpersonal behaviour ofmanagement representatives, i.e. the direct supervisor or the source of justice, interactionaljustice is considered to be related to cognitive, affective and behavioural reactions towardsthese representatives (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). This dimension of justice iseffective in interviews conducted during selection, performance appraisals and feedbackinterventions. Training of managers in soft skills may improve their interpersonalbehaviours with employees especially during selection interviews, performance appraisalsand any other activity that necessitates the mechanism of feedback.

Through having greater distributive, procedural justice and interactional justice,employees may be more motivated and involved in their work. The research is alsouseful in understanding the nature of the behavioural contributions made byemployees to their organizations as a function of their justice perceptions. Specifically,as Gupta and Kumar (2012) point out, employees who perceive procedural justice showgreater absorption; employees who perceive distributive performance appraisal justiceexhibit greater dedication and vigour; and employees who perceive informationaljustice are more physically, cognitively and behaviourally engaged in their work.Also, they are more likely to show greater overall motivation and commitment to theirjob, feel excited and take pride in their work, search for new ways of doing things, andtry to go an “extra mile” in order to do their work well.

Summing up, we may say that the results of this study provide evidence thatdistributive, procedural and interactional justice can be instrumental in enhancingemployees’ engagement both with their work and organization. Furthermore, byhighlighting the correlation (and hence interaction) among these three dimensions ofjustice, this study offers useful insights into the underlying processes through whichWE and OE can be improved. Finally, the finding that organizational justice canpromote both work and OEs tends to reaffirm the importance of justice as a criticaldeterminant of employee engagement.

Contribution to researchIn an effort to contribute to justice research in an organizational framework, thispaper explores the role of distributive, procedural and interactional justice ininfluencing engagement levels of public sector bank employees in India. The findingsfrom the study are expected to make significant contribution to existing literature.We have not aimed specifically at establishing the importance of procedural justiceabove and beyond distributive justice. Instead, we have explored the possibility ofinter-relationship among the three dimensions of justice. Though interactionbetween procedural and distributive justice is well established, followed by thatbetween procedural and interactional justice, not many research has focused oninteractions between all these three types of justice, especially between distributiveand interactional justice. The linkage between interactional justice and supervisorattitude has already been explored by researchers in the past. Perceived interactionaljustice depends on employees’ reaction to the way in which their direct supervisorscarry out formal procedures (Greenberg, 1987). Unbiased and respective attitudes of

643

Employeeengagement

supervisors, which are an essential aspect of interactional justice, are likely to lead togreater perception of social support at work among workers (Fujishiro andHeaney, 2009).

The issue of supervisor relations has been considered by Saks (2006) in his seminalantecedents-consequences model as PSS, which was found to be a significant predictorof employee engagement. Probably because the variable PSS deals with the role ofsupervisor in providing social support to employees, the antecedents-consequencesmodel has considered only distributive justice and procedural justice and notinteractional justice. Hence this research paper makes a departure from Saks’ (2006)model, and has considered interactional justice along with the other two dimensions ofjustice in predicting employee engagement. In this way it adds to the very smallnumber of studies that have investigated the role of interactional justice in enhancingwork and OEs individually. Another unique contribution of this study is thatinteractional justice is established to be related to the other dimensions of justice andthat it plays an important role in determining work and OEs.

Limitations of the study and scope for further researchIn spite of sincere efforts on the part of the researchers, this study has some limitations.First, sample size was relatively small, which may result in reducing the statisticalsignificance of the results. Future studies might seek to evaluate the constructsdiscussed in this study in a more diverse geographical area covering pan-Indiabranches to yield better generalization of the findings. Second, the three dimensions oforganizational justice have been modeled in a linear manner using traditionalregression analysis. However, given the complex relationship already establishedbetween these dimensions (e.g. by Lind and Tyler, 1988; Cohen-Charash and Spector,2001; Colquitt et al., 2001), using structural equation modeling could definitely lead tomore interesting insights on the inter-relationship among these three dimensions.Third, the extent to which these findings generalize to respondents working in privatesector banks in India is not clear, as these banks may have different procedures,outcome distribution and interpersonal processes or treatment of individuals, whichmay cause different perceptions of employees towards distributive, procedural andinteractional justice. Further interesting observations could be drawn by a comparativeanalysis between public and private sector bank employees. Our study has only takenthree dimensions of justice i.e. distributive, procedural, interactional and two forms ofengagement, i.e. work and OEs. Inclusion of informational and interactional justiceas the two components of interactional justice can also yield interesting results.We recommend further studies to include moderating variables like leadership andtrust to find the possible impact of interaction of organizational justice with thesevariables on employee engagement. Future research may also consider linking theconstructs of the present study to variables like POS and leadership in predictingengagement, or may further be extended to determine work outcomes like OCB due tointeraction among these dimensions of justice.

Yet another study limitation is the reliance on self-report data in gatheringinformation from a single individual (i.e. the respondent) on a single occasion.This approach raises questions about common source bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).In order to minimize the effects of common method bias, we have compiled itemsthat minimize item ambiguity, using reliable and valid scales, and have also consideredreduction in potential evaluation apprehension by guaranteeing anonymity ofrespondents’ answers as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003).

644

PR43,4

References

Adams, J.S. (1963), “Toward an understanding of inequity”, Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 422-436.

Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berekowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, Vol. 2, pp. 267-299.

Albrecht, S. (2010), Handbook of Employee Engagement, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Alder, S.A. and Tompkins, P.K. (1997), “Electronic performance monitoring: an organizationaljustice and concretive control perspective”, Management Communications Quarterly,Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 259-288.

Alexander, S. and Ruderman, M. (1987), “The role of procedural and distributive justice inorganizational behavior”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 177-198.

Alfes, K., Shantz, A.D., Truss, C. and Soane, E.C. (2013), “The link between perceived humanresource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: a moderatedmediation model”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24No. 2, pp. 330-351.

Alvi, A.K. and Abbasi, A.S. (2012), “Impact of organizational justice on employee engagementin banking sector of Pakistan”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 12 No. 5,pp. 643-649.

Ambrose, M.L. and Cropanzano, R. (2003), “A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness:an examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 266-275.

Andrew, O.C. and Sofian, S. (2012), “Individual factors and work outcomes of employeeengagement”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 40, pp. 498-508.

Ang, S., Dyne, L.V. and Begley, T. (2003), “The employment relationships of foreign workersversus local employees: a field study of organizational justice, job satisfaction,performance, and OCB”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 561-583.

Austin, W. and Walster, E. (1974), “Participants’ reactions to equity with the world”, Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 528-548.

Austin, W.G. and Tobiasen, J.M. (1984), “Legal justice and the psychology of conflict resolution”,in Folger, R. (Ed.), The Sense of Injustice: Social Psychological Perspectives, Plenum,New York, NY, pp. 227-274.

Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), “Transformational leadership andorganizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderatingrole of structural distance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 951-968.

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”,Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.

Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L. and Leiter, M.P. (2011), “Key questions regarding work engagement”,European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-28.

Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2007), “Job resources boost workengagement, particularly when job demands are high”, Journal of Educational Psychology,Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 274-284.

Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. and Taris, T.W. (2008), “Work engagement:an emerging concept in occupational health psychology”, Work & Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3,pp. 187-200.

Barling, J. and Phillips, M. (1993), “Interactional, formal and distributive justice in the workplace:an exploratory study”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 127 No. 6, pp. 649-657.

Baumruk, R. (2004), “The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business successes”,Workspan, Vol. 47, pp. 48-52.

645

Employeeengagement

Bettencourt, L.A., Brown, S.W. and McKenzie, S.B. (2005), “Customer-oriented boundary-spanning behaviors: test of a social exchange model of antecedents”, Journal of Retailing,Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 141-157.

Bhatnagar, J. and Biswas, S. (2010), “Predictors & outcomes of employee engagement:implications for the resource-based view perspective”, Indian Journal of IndustrialRelations, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 273-288.

Bhupatkar, A.A. (2003), “Employees’ perceptions of organizational justice on work satisfactionand organizational citizenship behavior”, master’s thesis, Emporia State University,Emporia.

Bies, R.J. (1987), “The predicament of injustice: the management of moral outrage”, in Cummings, L.L.and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, JAI Press, Greenwich,CT, pp. 289-319.

Bies, R.J. (2001), “Interactional (in) justice: the sacred and the profane”, in Greenberg, J. andCropanzano, R. (Eds), Advances in Organizational Justice, Stanford University Press,Palo Alto, CA, pp. 85-108.

Bies, R.J. (2005), “Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct?”,in Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Justice, LawrenceErlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 85-112.

Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.F. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”,in Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiation inOrganizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol. 1, pp. 43-55.

Bies, R.J. and Tripp, T.M. (1995), “Beyond distrust: getting even and the need for revenge”,in Karmer, R.M. and Tyler, T.T. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Newbury Park, CA,pp. 246-260.

Biswas, S., Varma, A. and Ramaswami, A. (2013), “Linking distributive and procedural justice toemployee engagement through social exchange: a field study in India”, The InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 1570-1587.

Blader, S.L. and Tyler, T.R. (2000), “A four-component model of procedural justice: what makesa process fair in work settings?”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy ofManagement, Toronto, 8 August.

Bobocel, D.R. and Holmvall, C.M. (2001), “Are interactional justice and procedural justice different?Framing the debate”, in Gilliland, S., Steiner, D. and Skarlicki, D. (Eds), Theoretical andCultural Perspectives on Organizational Justice, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT,pp. 85-108.

Chou, R.J.A. (2009), “Organizational justice and turnover intention: a study of direct care workersin assisted living facilities for older adults in the United States”, Social Development Issues,Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 69-85.

Clay-Warner, J., Reynolds, J. and Roman, P. (2005), “Organizational justice and work satisfaction:a test of three competing models”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 391-409.

Coetzee, M. (2005), “The fairness of affirmative action: an organizational justice perspective”,master’s thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 278-321.

Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation ofa measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400.

Colquitt, J.A. and Chertkoff, J.M. (2002), “Explaining injustice: the interactive effects ofexplanation and outcome on fairness perceptions and task motivation”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 591-610.

646

PR43,4

Colquitt, J.A., Greenberg, J. and Zapata-Phelan, C.P. (2005), “What is organizational justice?A historical overview”, in Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J.A. (Eds), Handbook ofOrganizational Justice, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 3-58.

Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., Judge, T.A. and Shaw, J.C. (2006), “Justice and personality: usingintegrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects”, Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 110-127.

Colquitt, J.A., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O., Conlon, D.E. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), “Justice at themillennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 425-445.

Cropanzano, R. (Ed.) (1993), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human ResourceManagement, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Cropanzano, R. and Ambrose, M.L. (2001), “Procedural and distributive justice are more similarthan you think: a monistic perspective and a research agenda”, in Greenberg, J. andCropanzano, R. (Eds), Advances in Organizational Justice, Stanford University Press,Stanford, CA, pp. 119-151.

Cropanzano, R. and Folger, R. (1989), “Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: beyondequity theory”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 293-299.

Cropanzano, R. and Greenberg, J. (1997), “Progress in organizational justice: tunneling throughthe maze”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 12. Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 317-372.

Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-899.

Cropanzano, R. and Prehar, C.A. (1999), “Using social exchange theory to distinguish proceduralfrom interactional justice”, paper presented at the Society for Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, Atlanta, 30 April-2 May.

Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C.A. and Chen, P.Y. (2002), “Using social exchange theory to distinguishprocedural from interactional justice”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 27 No. 3,pp. 324-351.

Crow, M.S., Lee, C. and Joo, J. (2012), “Organizational justice and organizational commitmentamong South Korean police officers: an investigation of work satisfaction asa mediator”, International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 35 No. 2,pp. 402-423.

Daileyl, R.C. and Kirk, D.J. (1992), “Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of jobdissatisfaction and intent to turnover”, Human Relations, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 305-317.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The jobdemands-resources model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3,pp. 499-512.

Deutsch, M. (1985), Distributive Justice, University Press, New Haven, CT.

DeConinck, J.B., Stilwell, C.D. and Brock, B.A. (1996), “A construct validity analysis of scores onmeasures of distributive justice and pay satisfaction”, Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 1026-1036.

Edmondson, A. (1996), “Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: group andorganizational influences on the detection and correction of human error”, Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 5-32.

Edmondson, A. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-383.

Elanain, H.M.A. (2008), “Work characteristics, work attitudes, and behaviors in a non-westerncontext”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 457-477.

647

Employeeengagement

Folger, R. (1993), “Reactions to mistreatment at work”, in Murnighan, J.K. (Ed.), Social Psychologyin Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,pp. 161-183.

Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactionsto pay raise decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 115-130.

Fryxell, G.E. and Gordon, M.E. (1989), “Workplace justice and work satisfaction as predictorsof satisfaction with union and management”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32No. 4, pp. 851-866.

Fujishiro, K. and Heaney, C.A. (2009), “Justice at work, work stress, and employee health”, HealthEducation Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 487-504.

Gagne, M., Donia, M. and Berube, N. (2007), Relationships Between Organizational Justice andDifferent Motivational Orientations, In SIOP Congress, New York, NY.

Greenberg, J. (1987), “Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: do the meansjustify the ends?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 55-61.

Greenberg, J. (1989), “Cognitive reevaluation of outcomes in response to underpayment inequity”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 174-184.

Greenberg, J. (1990), “Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 399-432.

Greenberg, J. (1993), “The social side of fairness: interpersonal and informational classes oforganizational justice”, in Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: ApproachingFairness in Human Resource Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ, pp. 79-103.

Greenberg, J. and Scott, K.S. (1996), “Why do employees bite the hands that feed them? Employeetheft as a social exchange process”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research inOrganizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 111-166.

Gruman, J.A. and Saks, A.M. (2011), “Performance management and employee engagement”,Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 123-136.

Gupta, V. and Kumar, S. (2012), “Impact of performance appraisal justice on employeeengagement: a study of Indian professionals”, Employee Relations, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 61-78.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), “Development of the work diagnostic survey”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 159-170.

Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “Burnout and work engagement amongteachers”, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 495-513.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), “Business- unit-level relationship betweenemployee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 268-279.

Homans, G.C. (1961), Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, NY.

Inoue, A., Kawakami, N., Ishizaki, M., Shimazu, A., Tsuchiya, M., Tabata, M. and Akiyama, M.(2010), “Organizational justice, psychological distress, and work engagement in Japaneseworkers”, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol. 83 No. 1,pp. 29-38.

Johnson, J.S. (2007), “Organizational justice, moral ideology, and moral evaluation as antecedentsof moral intent”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University, Blacksburg, VA.

Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement atwork”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.

648

PR43,4

Kahn, W.A. (1992), “To be fully there: psychological presence at work”, Human Relations, Vol. 45No. 4, pp. 321-349.

Karatepe, O.M. (2011), “Procedural justice, work engagement, and job outcomes: evidencefrom Nigeria”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 20 No. 8,pp. 855-878.

Kashyap, V., Puga Ribeiro, A.H., Asare, A. and Brashear, T.G. (2007), “Developing sales forcerelationalism: the role of distributive and procedural justice”, Journal of Personal Selling &Sales Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 235-245.

Kittredge, A. (2010), “Predicting work and organizational engagement with work and personalfactors”, Master’s theses, Paper No. 3771, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.

Konovsky, M.A. (2000), “Understanding procedural justice and its impact on businessorganizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 489-511.

Konovsky, M.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1991), “Perceived fairness of employee drug testingas a predictor of employee attitudes and work performance”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 698-707.

Kressel, K. and Pruitt, D.G. (1989), Mediation Research: The Process and Effectiveness ofThird-Party Intervention, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Lemons, M. and Danehower, V.C. (1996), “Organizational justice and the glass ceiling:the moderating role of gender schemas”, Best Papers Proceedings, Academy ofManagement, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, pp. 398-402.

Lemons, M.A. and Jones, C.A. (2000), “Procedural justice in promotion decisions: usingperceptions of fairness to build employee commitment”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 268-280.

Leventhal, G.S. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study offairness in social relationships”, in Gregen, K., Greenberg, M. and Willis, R. (Eds), SocialExchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 27-55.

Li, H. (2012), “A study on the relationships among organizational justice, organizationalidentification, and work engagement: evidence from the hi-tech service industries”, paperpresented in International Joint Conference on Service Sciences by the Natural ScienceFund Committee of China, Shanghai, 26 May.

Li, S., Li, X. and Shi, K. (2010), “The influence of procedure justice on work engagement:the mediating role of organizational commitment”, 2nd Symposium on Web Society, IEEE,pp. 632-636.

Lind, A.E. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, New York, NY.

Lipponen, J., Olkkonen, M.E. and Myyry, L. (2004), “Personal value orientation as a moderator inthe relationships between perceived organizational justice and its hypothesizedconsequences”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 275-292.

Lockwood, N.R. (2007), Leveraging Employee Engagement for a Competitive Advantage, Societyfor Human Resource Management, Alexandria, VA.

Llorens, S., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W. and Salanova, M. (2006), “Testing the robustness of the jobdemands-resources model”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 13 No. 3,pp. 378-391.

McCain, S.C., Tsai, H. and Bellino, N. (2010), “Organizational justice, employees’ ethical behavior,and work satisfaction in the casino industry”, International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 992-1009.

McFarlin, D.B. and Sweeney, P.D. (1992), “Distributive and procedural justice as predictors ofsatisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 626-637.

649

Employeeengagement

McLean, G.N. (2009), “The impact of organizational justice and work security on organizationalcommitment exploring the mediating effect of trust in top management”, master’s thesis,The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30.

Maleki, H. and Taheri, L.M. (2012), “Organizational justice: from theory to practice”, Journal ofBasic and Applied Scientific Research, Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 10118-10123.

Malinen, S., Wright, S.L. and Cammock, P. (2013), “What drives organisational engagement?A case study on trust, justice perceptions and withdrawal attitudes”, Evidence-basedHRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 96-108.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of Psychology,Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 397-422.

Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), “Integrating justice and socialexchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-748.

May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), “The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work”, OrganizationalPsychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 11-37.

Moorman, R.H. (1991), “Relationship between organizational justice and organizationalcitizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 845-855.

Muhammad, A.H. (2004), “Procedural justice as mediator between participation in decisionmaking and organizational citizenship behavior”, IJCM, Vol. 14 Nos 3/4, pp. 58-68.

Nabatchi, T., Bingham, B.L. and Good, D.H. (2007), “Organizational justice and workplacemediation: a six-factor model”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 18 No. 2,pp. 148-174.

Nelson, D.L. and Simmons, B.L. (2003), “Health psychology and work stress: a more positiveapproach”, in Quick, J.C. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), Handbook of Occupational HealthPsychology, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 97-119.

Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship betweenmethods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 527-556.

Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The “Good Soldier” Syndrome, LexingtonBooks, Lexington, MA.

Orlowska, A. (2011), The Mediating Effect of Psychological Empowerment, Perception ofOrganizational Justice and Human Capital on the Relationship Between the Employees’Perception of HR Practices and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, Tilburg University,Tilburg.

Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. and Williams, E. (1999), “Fairness perceptions and trust as mediatorsfor transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 897-933.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method bias inbehavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Rahim, M.A., Magner, N.R. and Shapiro, D.L. (2000), “Do justice perceptions influence styles ofhandling conflict with supervisors? What justice perceptions, precisely”, InternationalJournal of Conflict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 9-31.

Ram, P. and Prabhakar, V.G. (2011), “The role of employee engagement in work-relatedoutcomes”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 47-61.

650

PR43,4

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment to the organization:the contribution of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 825-836.

Richman, A. (2006), “Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?”, Workspan,Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 36-39.

Robbins, T.L., Summers, T.P., Miller, J.L. and Hendrix, W.H. (2000), “Using the group valuemodel to explain the role of non instrumental justice in distinguishing the effects ofdistributive and procedural justice”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 511-518.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004), The Drivers of Employee Engagement, Institutefor Employment Studies, Brighton.

Rothbard, N.P. (2001), “Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work andfamily”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 655-684.

Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal ofManagerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.

Saunders, M. and Thornhill, A. (2003), “Organizational justice, trust, and the management ofchange”, Personnel Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 360-375.

Scandura, T.A. (1999), “Rethinking leader member exchange: an organizational justiceperceptive”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-11.

Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationshipwith burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of organizational Behavior,Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 293-315.

Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2010), “Defining and measuring work engagement: bringing clarityto the concept”, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work Engagement: A Handbook ofEssential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, pp. 10-24.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement ofengagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journalof Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.

Shaw, K. (2005), “An engagement strategy process for communicators”, Strategic CommunicationManagement, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 26-29.

Sheppard, B.H., Lewicki, R.J. and Minton, J.W. (1992), Organizational Justice: The Search forFairness in the Workplace, Lexington Books, New York, NY.

Shrivastava, A. and Purang, P. (2011), “Employee perceptions of performance appraisals:a comparative study on Indian banks”, The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 632-647.

Simpson, P. and Kaminski, M. (2007), “Gender, organizational justice perceptions and unionorganizing”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 57-72.

Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), “Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive,procedural and interactional justice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 434-443.

Skarlicki, D.P. and Latham, G.P. (1996), “Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union:a test of organizational justice theory”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 2,pp. 161-169.

Skarlicki, D.P. and Latham, G.P. (1997), “Leadership training in organizational justice to increasecitizenship behavior within a labor union: a replication”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50No. 3, pp. 617-633.

Strom, D.L., Sears, K.L. and Kelly, K.M. (2013), “Work engagement: the roles of organizationaljustice and leadership style in predicting engagement among employees”, Journal ofLeadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 1-12.

651

Employeeengagement

Suliman, A. and Kathairi, M.A. (2013), “Organizational justice, commitment and performance indeveloping countries: the case of the UAE”, Employee Relations, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 98-115.

Sweeney, P.D. and McFarlin, D.B. (1993), “Workers’ evaluations of the ‘ends’ and ‘means’:an examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice”, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 23-40.

Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Tyler, T. and Bies, R.J. (1990), “Beyond formal procedures: the interpersonal context of proceduraljustice”, in Carroll, J. (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings,Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 77-98.

Tyler, T.R. (1990), Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy and Compliance, YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, CT.

Tyler, T.R. and Caine, A. (1981), “The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction withformal leaders”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 642-655.

Walster, E., Walster, G.W. and Berschied, E. (1978), Equity: Theory and Research, Allyn & Bacon,Boston, MA.

Wang, X., Liao, J., Xia, D. and Chang, T. (2010), “The impact of organizational justice on workperformance: mediating effects of organizational commitment and leader-memberexchange”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 660-677.

Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H. and Tetrick, L.E. (2002), “The role of fair treatment andrewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 590-598.

Weiss, H.M., Suckow, K. and Cropanzano, R. (1999), “Effects of justice conditions on discreteemotions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 786-794.

Welch, M. (2011), “The evolution of the employee engagement concept: communicationimplications”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 328-346.

Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A. and Werner, J.M. (1998), “Managers as initiators oftrust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthybehavior”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-530.

Further reading

Williams, S., Pitre, R. and Zainuba, M. (2002), “Justice and organizational citizenship behaviorintentions: fair rewards versus fair treatment”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 142No. 1, pp. 33-44.

Corresponding authorDr Piyali Ghosh can be contacted at: piyali2602@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

652

PR43,4