The Effect of Organizational Justice Perception on Job Satisfaction of Health Employeesglobalbizresearch.org/files/5031_ijraob_mahmud-akbolat... · 2015. 7. 7. · employees and the

International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB)

An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3197)

2015 Vol: 1 Issue 2

360 www.globalbizresearch.org

The Effect of Organizational Justice Perception on Job Satisfaction

of Health Employees

Mahmud AKBOLAT,

Faculty of Business,

Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.

E-mail: [email protected]

Oguz ISIK,

Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences,

Hacettepe University, Ankara-Turkey.


Ali YILMAZ,

Faculty of Health Science,

Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey.


Nesrin AKCA,

Faculty of Health Science,

Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey.


___________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between organizational justice and job

satisfaction of health employee and to reveal whether or not differences according to socio-

demographic characteristics of employees. Organizational justice scale that was developed

by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) and Minnesota Job Satisfaction Scale that was developed

Weis and colleagues (1967) were used as data collection tool in the study. The survey was

administrated in a public hospital in Sakarya between May 30 and 30 June 2011. The validity

and reliability of data obtained from the survey was measured using analysis confirmatory

factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Path analysis, descriptive statistical

methods, one-way variance analysis and independent samples t test were used for analyzing

of the data. Results were evaluated in 95% confidence interval, p



2015 Vol: 1 Issue 2


1. Introduction

Organizational justice is based on Equality Theory of Adams (Luthans 1981). In

accordance with this theory, individuals compare gaining obtained at the end of tasks

executed with the gaining of other individuals and when they perceive injustice as a result of

such comparison, they improve certain attitudes towards their managers and works

(Greenberg 1990).

Organizational justice includes sovereignty and promotion of fair and ethical

implementations and proceedings within the organization (Iscan and Naktiyok 2004).

Moorman (199) defines organizational justice as a term being directly related with working

areas and defining the justice. Workers within the organization expect equal application of

rules to all employees, payment of equal amount to equal work and equal benefiting from fees

and social possibilities. However, not only outcomes and comparison of such outcomes are

placed on the focus of justice perceptions, but also rules within the organization, application

type of these rules and interaction between the individuals are also included by the scope

(Barling and Phillips 1993). In that case, studies on organizational justice analyze perception

formation, the cognitive and emotional processing of events, attitudinal and behavioral

reactions to perceived mistreatment, and the formation of justice climates within workgroups

and organizations (Rupp, 2011).

Organizational justice is analyzed in three categories named as distributive, procedural

and interactional.

Distributive justice shortly defines honestly share of outputs within the organization

(Lambert et al., 2007). Distributive justice is related with honesty and fidelity shown during

distribution of organizational resources. Distribution justice focus on wage increases,

performance evaluations, promotions and punishments (Tutar 2007). Distributive justice

compares gaining presented by the organization to the employees with their responsibilities

within the organization, their level of expertise, effort and other contributions related with the

work (Moorman, 1991). Individuals may perceive outputs as fair or unfair (income, bonus,

promotion, social rights, etc.). They make comparisons between what they and others

obtained. As a result, they may think that injustice is done towards them. This point of view

may affect their attitudes and behaviors of these individuals may change with respect to their

attitudes (Ozdevecioglu, 2003; Barsky and Kaplan, 2007). In other words, what is important

in terms of distributive justice is the belief of employees with regard to the fairness of their

share among the resources distributed.

Procedural justice is based on views of individuals in terms of accuracy of proceedings or

methods used during decision-making process of the management for the individual or other

employees. Procedural justice is defined as the fairness of the methods, procedures and



2015 Vol: 1 Issue 2


policies used in identification and measurement of items such as wage, promotion, material

possibilities, working conditions and performance evaluation (Jahangir et al. 2006; Dogan

2002). One of the significant issues of the procedural justice is the behavior of the decision-

making managers towards the individuals affected due to the decision. Honest and kind

attitudes of managers towards the persons affected due to the decision, timely feedback in

terms of the decision taken, respecting the rules are counted among the basic indicators of

procedural justice related evaluation (Greenberg, 1990). Adequate explanations made by the

decision-maker regarding the reasons on which the decision is based and sincere

communications established with the employees affect procedural justice related perceptions

positively. This form of organizational justice scrutinizes whether or not people feel that they

are treated fairly, when decisions are being implemented. Fair interpersonal treatment

necessitates that managers communicate truthfully and treat people with courtesy and respect

(Colquitt et al., 2001).

Interactional justice is viewed as expanded version of procedural justice and is related

with human factor of organizational implementations. Accordingly, interactional justice

highlights the justice perception related with the communication established between the

employees and the managers distributing the resources. In accordance with this dimension of

organizational justice, performance of the communication process between the source of

justice and the receiver on the basis of kindness, respect and honesty is important (Cohen-

Charash and Spector 2001). The important issue in terms of interactional justice is the

perceptions related with the quality of inter-personal behaviors encountered during

application of processes.

Surveys performed about organizational justice show that justice related concerns of the

employees may affect their attitudes and behaviors.

Researchers of the justice mainly focus on distributive justice interpreting justice

perceptions about outcomes of decisions taken and procedural justice defining justice

perception during decision-making process. As for surveys conducted in recent years,

interpersonal justice (sincere and respect) and informative justice named also as interactional

justice (adequate, honest explanations) are considered (Judge and Colquitt 2004). In

conclusion, perceptions related with distributive justice is based on fair utilization of

resources being available within the organization; whereas, justice perception regarding

processes considered within distribution decisions are considered in the scope of procedural

justice (Scandura, 1999). Communicative justice represents the justice perceived during

execution of processes by means of mutual communication.

Job satisfaction reflects respond of the employees against the job or part of job (Varoglu,

1993). Job satisfaction is defined as pleasing or positive emotions arisen due to evaluation of

the job or experience by the employee (Locke, 1976); perception of the employees regarding



2015 Vol: 1 Issue 2


the job and tangible, intangible possibilities provided by the job (Luthans, 1994) or emotional

respond improved by the employee as a result of evaluation of the job and job environment.

Job satisfaction may result with determination of the job or price for the job experience of the

individual, in which case the individual may be pleased or feel positive senses (Locke, 1976)

and it realizes when characteristics of the job overlaps with the requests of the employee

(Okray and Cakici, 2008). An interesting job, any job providing learning opportunities,

bringing responsibilities are all reasons for satisfaction (Sevimli and İscan, 2005). Job

satisfaction or dissatisfaction defines intrinsic evaluations as a product of ideas and behaviors

of the employees towards their jobs, job environments or co-workers; their general attitudes

towards their jobs (Solmus, 2004).

At it may be understood from above definitions, different definitions are presented about

job satisfaction; however, it is generally accepted that this concept represent positive state of

mind of the employee towards his/her job or job experience, pleasure felt against the changing

job with respect to the values owned, harmony between job related expectations and

promotions provided by the job, attitudes towards the job (Kilic et al., 2008). Accordingly,

job satisfaction is the pleasure or positive feelings sensed as a result of evaluation of the job

or life. This sense can be felt by the employees when the values to be obtained from the

organization are equal to the values needed (Basaran, 1992). Job satisfaction is an important

factor encouraging the people to work, success hopes to be senses as a result of their efforts.

Satisfaction is possible when these hopes are realized (Eren, 1990).

Job satisfaction is a positive factor enabling orientation towards the job. Behavioral

differences are identified between those having high and low job satisfaction. Job motivation

and quality of service increase, as job satisfaction increases. When health employees are

pleased of their working environment, they concentrate their energies towards increase of

patient care quality (Kilic et al., 2008).

When the expectation and longing levels of the employees are higher than what they

obtain actually, job dissatisfaction arises. Most of the studies related with job satisfaction aim

to make job dissatisfaction clear and to take certain measures (Kazanc, 1998), as job

dissatisfaction may cause decrease in productivity and performance of the employee as a

result of which the employee may sabotage the job and quit the job (Dole and Schroeder,

2001; Vecchio, 1995). Therefore, it should be considered that issues such as lower

performance, discontinuity and increase in workforce turnover shall be encountered, in case

of job dissatisfaction (Noe et al., 1997).

While satisfaction of the employees due to the external resources (wage, promotion,

admiration, master, etc.) is called as external job satisfaction; satisfaction experienced due to

the internal resources (respect, skill, decision-making, conscience, occupancy, etc.) is called

as internal satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967). Therefore, internal job satisfaction is related with



2015 Vol: 1 Issue 2


success, recognition, appreciation, intrinsic features of the job such as the job, job

responsibility, promotion and feelings of the employees about the job. However, external job

satisfaction orients towards business policy, audit type, relations with the managers and

subordinates, working conditions of the company, environment of the business, such as wage

and feelings of the employees about the business.

Although justice concept is perceived as important in terms of all individuals,

organizational justice concept increases its significance within the business life changing

rapidly every day (Elovainio 2002); because, organizational justice is a fundamental

requirement in order for provision of personal satisfactions of organizations and the persons

working within the organizations (Lambert 2003). In particular, in case of discriminatory

behaviors of the managers, employees shall perceive this condition as an organizational

injustice in which case the employees shall not obtain job satisfaction in such an environment.

Possible output of a working environment being lack of job dissatisfaction shall be

unproductivity of the employees and even, higher desire to quit the job.

In this study, relations between the organizational justice and job satisfaction is analyzed

in health institutions representing labor intensive sector and accordingly, impacts of

organizational justice on job satisfaction are searched. An environment that is perceived as

fair by employees of the organization effects a positive on job satisfaction (Kaneshiro, 2008).

Therefore, some answers are tried find the following questions in the study:

Is there a relationship between job satisfaction and organizational justice?

Does organizational justice effect on job satisfaction?

2. Methodology

This study is performed to identify impact of organizational justice perceived by health

employees on job satisfaction and whether socio-demographical characteristics of the

employees cause differences on organizational justice and job satisfaction.

Universe of the survey is the health employees, except for doctors working at a public

hospital in Sakarya. Any sample is not selected in the scope of the survey and it is aimed to

access all employees. There were 680 staff and 400 questionnaires were distributed, but 279

of them were received back. Return rate of the questionnaire is 72.25%.

In the scope of the study, organizational justice scale improved by Niehoff and Moorman

(1993) and Minnesota Job Satisfaction scale improved by Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) are

used as data collection means. The organizational justice scale has 20 items, including three

dimensions, namely, distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice. The

Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire (short form) is a 20-item self-report measure of job

satisfaction, including two dimensions, namely, internal and external satisfaction.



2015 Vol: 1 Issue 2


The participants are asked to choose the most appropriate answer among “1= absolutely

do not agree - 5= absolutely agree” in terms of those creating organizational loyalty scale and

“1=Dissatisfied – 5=Very satisfied” for the job satisfaction scale. The questionnaire is

performed between May 30 and June 30, 2011. Data was analyzed using structural equality

model, descriptive statistical methods, independent samples t test and one-way ANOVA.

Results are evaluated within 95% confidence level, p



2015 Vol: 1 Issue 2


Figure 1: DFA results of scales used in the system

Organizational Justice Scale Job satisfaction Scale

CMIN=288.742; DF=140; CMIN/DF=2.062; p=.000;

GFI=.911; AGFI=.867; NFI=.909; IFI=.951; TLI=.940;

CFI=.950; RMSEA=.061

CMIN=320.520; DF=154; MIN/DF=2.081; p=.000;

GFI=.902; AGFI=.867; NFI=.912; IFI=.952; TLI=.940;


3. Findings

51.60% of the health employees participating to the study is females and the resting

48.40% is males. 59.9% of the participants are married and majority of the participants

(56.80%) is aged 30 and more. 49.10% of the participants of the survey has worked for 5

years and less and most of them (40.50%) received high school and associate degree

(34.90%) level education. 33.2-% of the participants is nurse and 27.70% of them is medical

secretary (Table 2).

Table 2: Socio-demographical characteristics of health employees (n=289)

Quantity Rate Quantity Rate

Gender

Female 149 51.60 Marital

status

Married 173 59.90

Male 140 48.40 Single 116 40.10

Total 289 100.00 Total 289 100.00

Age

Under 30 125 43.30

Working

period

5 years and less 142 49.10

30-39 97 33.60 6-10 years 65 22.50

Above 39 67 23.20 10 years and more 82 28.40

Total 289 100.00 Total 289 100.00

Education

status

Primary school 13 4.50

Task

Nurse 96 33.20

High school 117 40.50 Technician 35 12.10

Associate degree 101 34.90 Administrative 50 17.30



2015 Vol: 1 Issue 2


personnel

Undergraduate 37 12.80 Medical secretary 80 27.70

Master 21 7.30 Auxiliary staff 28 9.70

Total 289 100.00 Total 289 100.00

A model is developed to identify impact of organizational justice perception of health

employees on internal and external job satisfaction. Before evaluation of structural model, it

is ensured that designation of all clusters of causal relationship is sufficient and structural

model is acceptable by analyzing compliance statistics of the models. As it is obvious in

Figure 2, models are acceptable with respect to the GFI, RMSEA, TLI and NFI values

indicating basic compliance statistics of the models.

Figure 2: Model indicating impact of organizational justice perception on job satisfaction

CMIN=1264.487; DF=651; P=.000; CMIN/DF=1.942; GFI=.828; AGFI=.783; NFI=.841; IFI=.916; TLI=.898;


Figure 2 shows findings of organizational justice on job satisfaction and goodness indices

of scales. In the scope of the model, distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional

justice constituting organizational justice factors are called as independent variables

(exogenous); internal job satisfaction and external job satisfaction constituting job satisfaction

factors are called as dependent variables (endogenous). As it indicated in Table 3, high level

of covariance is available between procedural justice and interactional justice (ρ=0.933),

distributive justice and procedural justice (ρ=0.841) and distributive justice and interactional

justice (ρ=0.763) included in organizational justice – job satisfaction model (p



2015 Vol: 1 Issue 2


Table 3: Covariance relation between organizational justice dimensions

Relations between organizational justice factors ρ S.H. t p

Procedural justice Interactional justice .933 .074 8.066 ***

Distributive justice Procedural justice .841 .069 7.929 ***

Distributive justice Interactional justice .763 .065 7.984 ***

***p



2015 Vol: 1 Issue 2


internal and external job satisfaction of married health employees is higher than single health

employees. In terms of age, statistically significant difference is detected between external job

satisfaction of health employees aged 39, 29 and 30-38. External job satisfaction level of

health employees aged 39 is higher than others. These results could be affected by the status

of senior staff and the resources that they have.

Table 6: Difference in job satisfaction of health employees in accordance with socio-

demographical characteristics

n Ave. S.S. t p Post Hoc

Marital status/

internal job

satisfaction

Single 116 3.19 0.878

-2.433 0.000 Married 173 3.42 0.617

Marital status/

external job

satisfaction

Single 116 3.20 0.892

-1.661 0.004 Married 173 3.36 0.686

Age/ external job

satisfaction

≤29 years1 125 3.25 0.834

5.653 0.004 1-3 p=0.007

2-3 p=0.001 30-38 years2 97 3.17 0.773

≥39 years 3 67 3.56 0.604

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

This study is performed to determine impact of organizational justice on job satisfaction

level of health employees. It is supported that identification of perception of organizational

justice and job satisfaction by the health employees and interaction between these two factors

shall contribute to more productive and effective functioning of health organizations. Positive

perceptions of employees in health sector regarding their organizations having high level of

specialization shall affect their job satisfaction and related performance positively or

negatively.

In accordance with results of the survey, high level of covariance is available between

procedural justice and interactional justice (ρ=0.933), distributive justice and procedural

justice (ρ=0.841) and distributive justice and interactional justice (ρ=0.763) (p



2015 Vol: 1 Issue 2


and performance evaluation; negative impact on internal job satisfaction of health employees

is meaningful. Because this outcome shows that job satisfaction of health employees is

affected adversely as they think that their managers do not behave fairly in terms of above

stated issues. In addition, procedural justice has statistically meaningful impact on external

job satisfaction (p>0.05). Accordingly, health managers should act more carefully in terms of

procedural justice related proceedings and processes.

In accordance with the results of analysis performed on the basis of socio-demographical

characteristics of health employees, statistically meaningful difference is identified between

them in terms of organizational justice and job satisfaction, as well as their gender,

educational status and working periods. In addition, interactional justice and job satisfaction

perceptions of married health employees are higher than that of single health employees.

External job satisfaction levels of employees working for 39 years and more is higher than

other employees. Besides, distributive justice perceptions of nurses are lower than other

employees.

References

Barling, J. & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactional, Formal, and Distributive Justice in the

Workplace: An Exploratory Study. The Journal of Psychology, 127(6), 649-656.

Barsky, A. & Kaplan, S.A. (2007). If you feel bad, it’s unfair: a quantitative synthesis of

affect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 286-295.

Basaran, İ.E. (1992). Yönetimde İnsan İlişkileri. Kadıoğlu Matbası, Ankara.

Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit, In Kenneth A.

Bollen & J. Scott. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models, p. 136-162, Sage

Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Cakar D.N. & Yildiz, S. (2009). Örgütsel adaletin iş tatmini üzerindeki etkisi: algılanan

örgütsel destek bir ara değişken mi? Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(28), 68-90.

Cohen-Charash, Y. & Spector, P.E. (2001). The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-

Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 86 (2), 278-321.

Colquitt.A.J., Conlon,D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, O.L.H. Yee Ng,K. (2001). Justice at the

Millennium. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.

Dogan, H. (2002). İşgörenlerin Adalet Algılamalarında Örgüt İçi İletişim ve Prosedürel

Bilgilendirmenin Rolü. Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 2(2), 71-78.

Dole, C. & Schroeder, R,G. (2001). The impact of various factors on the personality, job

satisfaction and turnover intentions of professional accountants, Managerial Auditing

Journal, 16(4), 234-245.

Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M. & Vahtera, J. (2002). Organizational Justice: Evidence of a New

Psychosocial Predictor of Health. American Journal of Public Health, 92(1), 105-108.



2015 Vol: 1 Issue 2


Eren, E. (1990). Yönetim Psikolojisi, İ.Ü. İşletme Fakültesi Yayınları No. 105, İstanbul.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of

Management, 16(2), 399-432.

İscan, Ö.F. & Naktiyok A. (2004). Çalışanların Örgütsel Bağdaşımlarının Belirleyicileri

Olarak Örgütsel Bağlılık ve Örgütsel Adalet Algıları. Ankara Üniversitesi S.B.F. Dergisi,

59(1), 181-201.

Jahangir, N., Akbar M. & Begum, N. (2006). The Role of Social Power, Procedural Justice,

Organizational Commitment, and Job Satisfaction to Engender Organizational Citizenship

Behavior. ABA Journal. 26(3), 21-36.

Judge, T.A. & Colquitt, J.A. (2004). Organizational Justice and Stress: The Mediating Role of

Work–Family Conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 395-404.

Kazanc, H. (1998). Kamu Kuruluşlarında İş Tatmini ve Tübitak Örneği, Sakarya Üniversitesi

Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya.

Kilic, K.C., Efeoglu, İ.E., Mimaroglu, H. & Özgen, H. (2008). Adana İli’ndeki Özel Sağlık

Merkezlerinde Çalışan Personelin İş-Aile Yaşam Çatışmasının Örgütsel Bağlılık, İş Doyumu

ve İş Stresine Etkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(2),

241-254.

Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Third Edt.,

Guilford Press, New York.

Lambert, E. (2003). The Impact of Organizational Justice on Correctional Staff. Journal of

Criminal Justice, 31(2), 155-168.

Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L. & Griffin, M.L. (2007). The impact of distributive and

procedural justice on correctional staff job stres. job satisfaction, and organizational

commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(6), 664-656.

Locke, E.A. (1976). The Nature and Consequences of Job Satisfaction, In M. D. Dunnette

(ed), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally Publishing

Company, Chicago.

Luthans, F. (1981). Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw Hill Co.

Luthans, F. (1994). Organizational behavior, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.

Moorman, R.H. (1991). Relationship Between Organizational Justice and Organizational

Citizenship Behaviors: Do Fairness Perception Influence Employee Citizenship? Journal of

Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-855.

Niehoff B.P. & Moorman R.H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between

methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management

Journal, 36(3), 527-556.

Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. & Wright, P. (1997). Human Resource Management:

Gaining a Competitive Advantage, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, Chicago.



2015 Vol: 1 Issue 2


Okray, K.Z. & Cakici, E. (2008). Sağlık Çalışanlarında Tükenmişlik ve İş Doyumu. Anadolu

Psikiyatri Dergisi, (9), 132-138.

Özdevecioglu, M. (2003). Algılanan Örgütsel Adaletin Bireylerarası Saldırgan Davranışlar

Üzerindeki Etkilerinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve

İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, 77-96.

Rupp, D. E. 2011. An employee-centered model of organizational justice and social

responsibility. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(1): 72-94.

Scandura, T.A. (1999). Rethinking Leader-Member Exchange: An Organizational Justice

Perspective. Leadership Qurterly, 10(1), 25-40.

Sevimli, F. & İscan, Ö.F. (2005). Bireysel ve İş Ortamına Ait Etkenler Açısından İş Doyumu.

EGE Akademik Bakış, 5(1), 55-64.

Solmus, T. (2004). İş Yaşamında Duygular ve Kişilerarası İlişkiler, Beta Basım, İstanbul..

Tutar, H. (2007). Erzurum’da Devlet ve Özel Hastanelerde Çalışan Sağlık Personelinin İşlem

Adaleti, İş Tatmini ve Duygusal Bağlılık Durumlarının İncelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel

Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(3), 97‐120.

Vecchıo, R. P. (1995). Organizational Behavior. Third Edition, Fort Worth, The Dryden

Press.

Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V. & England, G.W. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction

Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, Vol. 12, University of

Minnesota Industrial Relation Center, Minneapolis, MN.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of

the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw and L.

L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical

essays and critical reviews, 18, 1-74. Jai Press Inc., London.

Yildirim, F. (2007). İş Doyumu İle Örgütsel Adalet İlişkisi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi,

62(1), 253-279.

Documents

The Effect of Organizational Justice Perception on Job Satisfaction of Health Employeesglobalbizresearch.org/files/5031_ijraob_mahmud-akbolat... · 2015. 7. 7. · employees and the