a test of the relationships among perceptions ...132 gadjah mada international journal of business,...

131

Rifai —A Test of the Relationships among Perceptions of Justice, Job Satisfaction, ...

Gadjah Mada International Journal of BusinessMay-August 2005, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 131—154

A TEST OF THE RELATIONSHIPSAMONG PERCEPTIONS OF JUSTICE,

JOB SATISFACTION, AFFECTIVECOMMITMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR*

This study examines factors influencing organizational citizen-ship behavior in an organization. These factors include proceduraljustice, distributive justice, job satisfaction and commitment. Al-though previous studies have investigated commitment as antecedentof OCB, most of them did not specifically explain the type ofcommitment hypothesized. In terms of commitment, this study uti-lizes the specific type of commitment, i.e. affective commitment. Thetheoretical model proposes both distributive justice and proceduraljustice as antecedents of job satisfaction and job satisfaction has aneffect on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) through affec-tive commitment. SEM analysis of survey data from 383 nurses whoare working for private hospitals in Indonesia supports that thetheoretical model has met goodness-of-fit criterions. The findingsconcluded that there are significant relationships between both pro-cedural justice and distributive justice and job satisfaction. Jobsatisfaction has a significant impact for developing affective commit-ment. The results also support that affective commitment is asignificant predictor of organizational citizenship behavior.

Harif Amali Rifai

Keywords: age; “group-value” model; moderator; noninstrumental justice; organiza-tional commitment

* The author would like to thank Prof. Robert Waldersee (School of Business, QueenslandUniversity of Technology) for his valuable comments for this research.

132

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, May-August 2005, Vol. 7, No. 2

Introduction

Relationships among work-re-lated perceptions, attitudes, and be-havior in the work setting have been aninteresting theme in behavioral re-search. One of important reasons isthat attitudes are believed to have sig-nificant impacts on human resourcesoutcomes, for example OrganizationalCitizenship Behavior (OCB). OCB isa crucial factor for organizational effi-ciency, effectiveness, innovation, andadaptability within diverse organiza-tions (Organ 1988). OCB has an im-portant role ‘lubricating’ the socialmachinery of an organization that ‘en-ables participants to cope with theotherwise awesome conditions of in-terdependence on each other’ (Smithetal. 1983: 654). Organ (1988) also sug-gested that OCB as an indicator of jobperformance which is not only mea-suring the degree an employee reachedin terms of quantity requirement, butalso includes the spontaneous and in-novative behavior. This behavior islikely to be determined by attitudes(i.e. commitment and job satisfaction)and perceptions (i.e. organizationaljustice), individual’s commitment,which indicates the degree of indi-vidual’s attachment to organization.In addition, the relationship betweencommitment and OCB might be af-fected by organizational justice andjob satisfaction. Thus, the role of orga-nizational justice in explaining rela-tionship between job satisfaction andcommitment is likely to influenceOCB.

Organizational justice concept canbe viewed from two perspectives: pro-cedural justice and distributive justice.Procedural justice focuses on employ-ees’ attention ‘how’ decisions are pro-cessed and distributive justice refers toemployees’ perception on the fairnessof their outcomes. People evaluatewhether an outcome is appropriate,moral, or ethical, when they render adistributive judgment (Folger andCropanzano 1998). Justification forfairness perception can be generated byexisting of a frame of reference ascomparing factor, what researchersterm as a referent. Perception of indi-vidual in terms of decision-making pro-cess will have to do with perception ofoutcome fairness.

According to Greenberg (1996),perceptions of procedure are more use-ful for explaining attitudes toward in-stitutions, and distributive justice per-ceptions have a greater influence overattitudes towards a result of decision.All the same, universality of this rolenot absolute and the role of justicevaries according to organizational con-texts and types of rewards. Treambly etal. (2000) suggested that distributiveand procedural justice dimensions mustbe present if attitudes toward rewardsare to be properly understood, and per-ceptions of organizational justice andcompensation satisfaction can indepen-dently influence attitudes toward theorganization. Justice perceptions mayhave consequences on other elementsthat can affect organization’s perfor-mance, such as job satisfaction andorganizational commitment.

133


This study aims to test a modelwhich identifies the impact of justiceperceptions on job satisfaction and theeffects of that job satisfaction on affec-tive commitment and the impact ofthat commitment on individual OCB.To address the purpose of this study, atheoretical framework needs to be es-tablished.

Further, the theoretical model pre-dicts that affective commitment is animportant predictor of OCB, affectivecommitment as result of job satisfac-tion, and perceptions of justice areantecedents of job satisfaction. Thepremise of the model is grounded inseveral thoughts. Firstly, the notions ofjob satisfaction as an antecedent ofcommitment have received consider-able empirical supports (Mowday etal. 1982; Price and Mueller 1986).Nevertheless, the notions did notclearly reveal which type of commit-ment was hypothesized (e.g., affectivecommitment) as function of job satis-faction. Secondly, Schappe (1998) hasshowed that organizational commit-ment emerged as a significant predic-tor on organizational citizenship be-

havior when job satisfaction, justice,and commitment were considered si-multaneously. Finally, Williams andAnderson (1991) suggested that orga-nizational commitment should be in-cluded when studying effects of jobsatisfaction on OCB, given the poten-tially spurious significant findings ofprevious research that has consideredonly one of the two variables. In gen-eral, the developing body of literatureleads this research to a common themeas illustrated at Figure 1.

Theoretical Framework andHypotheses Development

The Effect of procedural justiceon job satisfaction

‘The experience of procedural jus-tice (or procedural justice) is a pro-found feature of social life, and onethat is worthy of study in its own right’(Lind and Tyler 1988: 93). The term ofprocedural justice has developed fromallocation preference theory(Greenberg 1987). This theory pro-poses a general model of allocation

Figure 1. Proposed Conceptual Model

Source: Developed for this research

Distributivejustice

Proceduraljustice

Jobsatisfaction

Affectivecommitment

OrganizationalCitizenshipBehavior

134


behavior or procedures where the ap-plication of the theory almost exclu-sively to procedural decision ratherthan its content. The processes of howemployee outcomes are determinedrather than what outcomes receivedcan be seen as an underpinning of theprocedural justice. In a sense, the pro-cedure that is used to determined em-ployee outcomes might be more impor-tant than actual outcomes itself (Folgerand Martin 1989; Martin and Bennett1996). For instance, employee percep-tions of performance appraisal mightbe determined by an evaluation system’sperceived fairness, regardless the ap-praisal results were positive or nega-tive. In this case, the procedures seemmore important than the end results; afavorable outcome does not necessar-ily bring with it recipient support.Moreover, recipients are more likely tosupport an unfavorable outcome whenthey perceive the decision-making pro-cedures to be fair.

According to Agho et al. (1993),few procedural factors were likely to beassociated with job satisfaction. Thesefactors include freedom to make job-related decisions, to make contribu-tions to the organizational work pro-cess and share beliefs to organizationalprocesses. Employees are less satisfiedwith their job when they do not have theinformation about decision-making pro-cedures adequately, and receive incom-patible requests from their supervisor.Therefore, procedural justice contrib-utes a significant effect on job satisfac-tion.

Folder and Konovsky (1989) statedthat procedural justice factors are in-terpretable as indicating employees’interest in forms of respect. Respect forperson is shown by treating the em-ployees in ways that can be seen to bejustified. People will portray a negativeattitude and/or behavior when an ex-planation for the decision making pro-cedure is inadequate in their percep-tion.

The reward decision-making pro-cedures might have a substantial im-pact on organization. The reward sys-tem is one of the ways how organiza-tion motivates employees, due to thesatisfaction gained by receiving rewardsas a consequence of exchange processconsideration such as between salaryand labor, or effort. Reward systemsare an explicit statement of theorganization’s value and beliefs andhave implications on the decision-mak-ing procedures in an organization. As itturned out, it is important to be consid-ered how procedural justice to enhancepositive evaluation of the rewards whichfinally leads to increase job satisfac-tion. Therefore, it can be said that theimpact of procedural justice on thepersonal-level evaluations may be as-sociated with positive emotional re-sponses that reflects how individualsreact to decision-making process. Lindand Tyler (1988) contended that satis-faction is one of the significant impactsof procedural fairness.

Several research have also notedthat procedural justice may provide abetter explanation for employee satis-

135


faction and loyal behavior than dis-tributive justice (e.g., Folger andKonovsky 1989; Scarpello and Jones1996; Sweeney and McFarlin 1997).Yoon (1996) found the effect of proce-dural justice and status equity is toenhance job satisfaction more than dis-tributive justice. He contended thatAsian societies are more concerned withsocial harmony, relational norms, andcollective values compared with West-ern societies. Collectively-oriented so-cieties prefer the equality principle andneed-based distribution rule of rewards,while individualistically-oriented soci-eties prefer the contribution-based eq-uity principle. In the case of Asiancontext, ‘they value in group member-ship more than tangible reward; anindividual’s inference of the whetherthe employment organization treats himor her as deserved in group member isoften based on procedural justice treat-ments in the group or organization’(Yoon 1996: 125). To further explorerelationship between procedural jus-tice and job satisfaction, the researchpresents the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: The higher the level ofprocedural justice per-ceived by employees,the higher the level oftheir satisfaction withthe job.

The Effect of Distributive on JobSatisfaction

Distributive justice refers to per-ceived fairness of distribution outcomesthat includes the conditions and goods

that affect individual well-being(Deutsch 1985). According toGreenberg (1987), distributive justiceis a concept focused on how individualsrespond to unfair treatment of organi-zation, or unfair distribution of re-wards and resources. Jasso (1980)claimed that distributive justice is anoutgrowth of sociological theories be-cause the theory explained the nature ofsocial comparison.

The logic of distributive justicetheory derives from a functional rela-tionship between outcomes (rewards)and contributions of input comparedwith some standards of comparison.The degree to which a distribution isjudged to be fair or unfair will dependon the valuation of these comparisons.The sources of comparison may beother people, a generalized other orones’ own past rewards. Perceptionthat regards the fairness of distributionis a cognitive decision, thus, it may leadto emotional outcomes or emotionalbehavior. Homans (1961) also noted asimilar idea as the following citation:

‘The more to a man’s disadvan-tage the rule of distributive justice failsof realization, the more likely he is todisplay the emotional behavior we callanger. Distributive justice may, ofcourse, fail in the other direction, to theman’s advantage rather than to this hisadvantage, and then he may feel guiltyrather than angry’ (pp: 75-76).

In organizational settings, dis-tributive justice variable may predictindividual-level of outcome such asjob satisfaction. Employees’ percep-

136


tions of fairness to their payment maylead to individual well being when thedistribution of rewards is fair; conse-quently it will able to increase feeling ofsatisfaction. Contemporary studiesnoted that employees have a tendencyto display feeling of dissatisfaction asthey perceive an unfair content of re-wards (Cropanzano and Greenberg1997).

Folger and Konovsky (1989) andMcFarlin and Sweeney (1992) whoinvestigated employees’ reaction toorganizational pay system found dis-tributive justice to be a stronger pre-dictor of pay satisfaction than proce-dural justice. Employees who perceivethey are being fairly treated with re-gard to a pay raise are not only satis-fied with their raise but also demon-strated an increase in their commit-ment. They also found the strongestrelationships were those between dis-tributive justice and pay satisfaction,and procedural justice and organiza-tional commitment.

Fields et al. (2000) reported thatboth distributive and procedural jus-tice have effect on job satisfaction andevaluation of supervision. Their re-search also supported that proceduraljustice as having a larger effect onevaluation of supervision; and distribu-tive justice has a larger effect on intentto stay and job satisfaction.

Lawler (1971) demonstrated thatthe distribution of organizational re-wards, including pay, promotion, sta-tus, performance evaluations, and jobtenure, have significant effects on sev-eral outcomes, namely job satisfaction,

quality of work life, and organizationaleffectiveness. Folger and Konovsky(1989) also showed similar findingsthat pay rise and job satisfaction sig-nificantly related to the perception ofdistributive justice.

Tyler et al. (1985) reported thatboth procedural and distributive jus-tice contribute significantly to variancein outcome satisfaction. Even thoughboth of justice contribute to variance insatisfaction, but contribution of dis-tributive justice is nearly twice that ofprocedural justice. It can be seen thatthere is a statistical difference of mag-nitude between distributive justice andprocedural justice. However, both typesof justice make a significant contribu-tion to explanation of outcome satis-faction.

In general, the body of literaturesupports the notions that both distribu-tive justice and procedural justice maylead to feeling of satisfaction or dissat-isfaction. Distributive justice may be amore important predictor of personaloutcomes or personal-level evaluationsfor the individuals who tend to considerthe content of outcome. The distribu-tive justice tends to explain specificattitudes about particular outcomes inquestion, while impact of proceduraljustice concerns attitude towards theinstitution (Greenberg 1990). There-fore, justice perception of the outcomesleads to feeling satisfaction. Thus, theresearch proposes following hypoth-esis:

Hypothesis 2: The higher the level ofdistributive justice per-ceived by employees,

137


the higher the level oftheir satisfaction withthe job.

The Effect of Job Satisfactionon Affective Commitment

Angle and Perry (1981) and Will-iam and Hazer (1986) suggested thatjob satisfaction is a determinant ofcommitment which is based on an ex-change of resources between individualand organization. Lum et al. (1998)contended that despite the major focusof studies have explored antecedentsof commitment from various catego-ries (e.g. personal characteristics, ex-perience, organizational factors, androle-related factors), still no clear rela-tions can be hypothesized.

The development of commitmentmay involve the vague reciprocal rela-tionship of attitudes and behavior overtime. Porter et al. (1974) noted that‘organizational commitment may rep-resent a related but more global evalu-ative linkage between the employeeand organization that includes job sat-isfaction among its specific compo-nents’ (p. 604). The process throughwhich commitment is developed mayinclude ‘self-reinforcing cycles’ of at-titudes and behaviors. These attitudesand behaviors would evolve on joband over time strengthen employeecommitment to the organization (Por-ter et al. 1974).

DeCotiis and Summers (1987)expressed a similar view that job satis-faction as determinant of commitment.A possible explanation is that while

satisfaction and commitment are eacha function of the correspondence be-tween individual expectations (of theirorganizations) and organizational real-ity, satisfaction is a more immediateconsequence of one’s perceptions ofcorrespondence. Thus, commitment canreduce the dysfunctional effect of short-term idiosyncratic behavior on the partof the organization towards an indi-vidual employee (DeCotiis and Sum-mers 1987). For instance, an employeewho has a high affective commitment isunlikely to show a negative reaction inregard to pay rise which they receive tobe inadequate.

Although developing concepts ofcommitment have identified three formsof commitment (affective, normative,and continuance commitment), affec-tive commitment has gained much at-tention in the behavioral research (Allenand Meyer 1990). In addition, this kindof commitment is based on psychologi-cal attachment, therefore, it is moreappropriate included to investigate anintegrated model which contains jus-tice, satisfaction, and organizationalcitizenship behavior.

Affective commitment refers toemotional attachment to, identifica-tion with, and involvement in the orga-nization (Meyer and Allen 1987). De-veloping of affective commitment inorganization might be influenced by towhat extent the organization is able tosatisfy employees’ needs, to meet theirexpectations, and to allow them toachieve their goals (Meyer et al. 1993).Affective commitment develops on the

138


basis of psychologically rewardingexperiences. Meta analyses of Mathieuand Zajac (1990) found that affectivecommitment is likely to be low amongemployees who are unsure about whatis expected of them or who are ex-pected to behave in ways that seemincompatible with organizations’ val-ues. It can be argued that emotionalattachment develops through positiveeffect resulting from supportive expe-rience associates with employee’s en-vironment, including organization.Experience that employees find par-ticularly satisfying are likely to in-crease affective commitment towardthe organization; those experiences thatare not satisfying might reduce feelingof attachment.

Employees with weak affectivecommitment tend to experience stressand feel displeasure when organiza-tional changes take place (Begley andCzajka 1993). It can be argued thatindividuals with strong affectivecommitment appear to be buffer againstthe impact of stress and displeasure. Ifthe employee feels unhappy because ofchanging conditions in the organiza-tion, the workers with strong affectivecommitment would be able to strengthentheir attitude toward organizationaloutcome (e.g., reduce intention to quitor increasing OCB).

Affective commitment may alsodevelop on the basis of retrospectiverationality or justification processes.According to retrospective rationalityview of commitment, employees who

had greater freedom to accept their job(more volition) demonstrated signifi-cantly stronger affective commitmentto the organization they chose than didthose with less freedom. Therefore, theincrease autonomy should facilitatehigher level of job satisfaction. Thequality of the chosen jobs was higherfor those who made their choice freelythan for those who were more con-strained by other factors (Meyer et al.1993).

Wanous et al. (1992) supportedthat employee expectations moderatethe extent to which individual’s experi-ences will be associated with affectivecommitment. Meta-analyses in termsof relationship between employee ex-pectations and affective commitmentshowed average correlation of .39(Wanous et al. 1992). Therefore, jobsatisfaction that implies conformity toa person’s expectation and his or herexperiences is significant in buildingthe affective commitment. Organiza-tion can increase job satisfaction byproviding accurate information thatreflects real conditions of the jobs(Wanous et al. 1992), in turn, leads toa high affective commitment. The re-view of literature above support todevelop the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The higher the level ofjob satisfaction per-ceived by employees,the higher the level ofemployees’ affectivecommitment

139


The Effect of AffectiveCommitment on OrganizationalCitizenship Behavior (OCB)

Predictions about the influence oforganizational commitment on OCBstill show a lack of consistency of thefindings. O’Reilly and Chatman (1986)examined relationship between theunderlying dimensions of commitment(compliance, identification, and inter-nalization) and self-reporting OCB.The study found that the internaliza-tion and identification, as a componentof affective commitment, were sig-nificant predictors of self-report OCB.It can be said that affective commit-ment is more likely to be related toOCB.

Meanwhile, William and Ander-son (1991) proposed that job satisfac-tion and organizational commitment isrelated to OCB. Their study identifiedtwo broad categories of OCB, whichthey labeled (a) OCBO —behaviorthat benefit the organization in generaland (b) OCBI— behavior that immedi-ately benefit specific individuals andindirectly contribute to the organiza-tion. The findings supported those cog-nitive components of satisfaction (jobcognition intrinsic, job cognition ex-trinsic and positive arousal) are signifi-cantly correlated with both OCBI andOCBO. In addition, the increment in R2

associated with the cognitive set wassignificant for both OCBI and OCBO.However, the study failed to find corre-lations between commitment and theseOCBs.

Organizational commitment isbelieved to be an attitudinal variablethat is likely to influence citizenshipbehavior. Organizational commitmentcan be considered as ‘the relativestrength of an individual’s identifica-tion with and involvement in an organi-zation’ (Mowdayet al. 1979: 226).Wiener (1982) noted that commitmentmight operate as a force that enables tomaintain ‘behavioral direction’ whenthe individuals’ expectations are notmet, or inequity occurs. OCB reflectsbehavior in the workplace that is notdirectly related to formal organizationalreward (Organ 1987). Linking betweencommitment and OCB can be seenwhen the expectations of formal re-ward are not completely met, yet theemployees with strong commitmentremain to show innovative and sponta-neous behavior which are beyond theirjob description.

Affective commitment can be saidthe strength of an individual’s attach-ment to an organization (Meyer andAllen 1984). Dyne and Ang (1998)explained that attachment typicallydevelops out of frequent and repeatedexchanges that make ongoing rela-tionship possible. Affective commit-ment to organizations is influenced byworkers’ perceptions of the supportthey received from their organizations.When the individuals feel they aretreated well by their organization, theyreciprocate and exceed the minimumrequirements of their job by helpingothers as well as the organization(Konovsky and Pugh 1994; Organ

140


1988). Thus, in this sense of psycho-logical attachment, affective commit-ment can be viewed as an antecedentof OCB. Shore and Wayne (1993)noted that there is a relationship be-tween affective commitment and su-pervisor rating of OCB. A similarfinding is also reported by Organ andRyan (1995).

Relationship between organiza-tional commitment and OCB has beenalso documented by Meyer et al.(2000). Their research found thatamong three-dimension of commit-ment (i.e., affective, normative, andcontinuance), affective commitmenthas the strongest positive correlationwith the citizenship behavior, followedby normative commitment. However,continuance commitment is unrelatedto that behavior. According toMorisson (1994), these different pat-terns of the research finding are prob-ably caused by the boundary betweenextra role and in-role behavior towardemployee’s attitude which is often un-clear.

Bolon (1997) attempted to examrelationship between three forms oforganizational commitment and citi-zenship behavior. The study found thatthere is a significant and positive rela-tionship between affective commitmentand OCBI (a specific individual as thetarget) using supervisor-rating and co-worker-rating. Employees’ emotionalattachment to, identification with, andinvolvement in, the organization maycontribute the achievement of organi-zational objectives. An individual iseager to assists other with organiza-

tionally relevant tasks or problems be-cause that action is perceived as con-tributing to or advancing organizationalgoals and values. O’Reilly and Chatman(1986) noted that there are positiveassociations between identification, andinternalization and OCB. Thus, affec-tive commitment can be said positivelycorrelate to OCB.

O’Reilly and Chatman (1986)demonstrated that individual’s psycho-logical attachment based on their iden-tification —involvement referred to adesire for affiliation— was found to bea significant predictor of extra-role be-havior (OCB). By referring to Meyerand Allens’ (1984) definition, both iden-tification and involvement are bases ofpsychological dimensions of affectivecommitment. Allen and Meyer (1990)argued that ‘employees’ willingness tocontribute to organizational effective-ness will be influenced by the nature ofthe commitment they experience’(p.73).Employees’ efforts to behave on behalfof the organization are likely to bedetermined by affective commitmentrather than continuance commitment,or normative commitment. This argu-ment can be linked to the nature ofaffective commitment as pertinent toemotional attachment, so that, feelingsof responsibility to increase behaviorsthat support organizational objectivesare created. Therefore, the researchproposes:

Hypothesis 4: The higher the level ofaffective commitmentperceived by employ-ees, the higher the levelof organizational citi-zenship behavior.

141


Research Method

Sample and Data Collection

Data were obtained from full-timenurses of private hospitals in WestSumatera and Riau Province in Indo-nesia. Survey packet consisted of thedemographic characteristics of the re-spondents and multiple-item (posi-tively and negatively worded) surveyinstruments. A mail survey with non-probability sampling method was ad-ministered to all four hundreds andfifty nurses across the eight hospitals.The questionnaires were sent alongwith a cover letter explaining the im-portance of the research. They wereaddressed to personnel managers ofthe selected hospitals to be distributedto the respondents by supports of ChiefNurse Executive. Participation was vol-untary and responses were treated withconfidentiality. Data were collectedover a 3-month period. Each respon-dent received a personalize envelope,and completed questionnaires werereturned sealed in envelops providedby the researcher to a specially markedbox in hospital’s human resource de-partment. The result of survey pro-duced a usable response rate of 85.11percent (N=383).

Measurement

Measurements of distributive jus-tice, procedural justice, job satisfac-tion, affective commitment and organi-zational citizenship behavior (OCB)were adopted and developed on thebasis of established existing variables

from previous studies. All variableswere measured with 5-point Likert typescaled.

The distributive justice measuresconsisting of four items were adaptedfrom Yoon and Thye (2002). Thesample items are ‘Compared to otheremployees in this hospital, my workreward is proper in view of my trainingand education’. The procedural jus-tice scale consisting of four items werealso adopted from Yoon and Thye(2000). The measures reflected instru-ments of behavioral research in thehospital setting. Both distributive jus-tice and procedural justice measureswith the anchors to strongly disagree(1) and to strongly agree (5). Job sat-isfaction scale was measured by fouritems scale which was developed byBrayfield and Rothe (1951). Theseitems were intended to measure a glo-bal index of satisfaction of the workerin the workplace. The sample itemsare ‘I am contented with my job itself’and ‘I like my current job’, with theanchors very dissatisfied (1) and verysatisfied (5). An eight-items of affec-tive commitment scale was adaptedfrom Alen and Meyer (1990). Affec-tive commitment refers to emotionalattachment to, identification with, andinvolvement in, and enjoys member-ship in, the organization (Allen andMeyer 1990). The sample item of com-mitment is: (a) ‘I would be very happyto spend the rest of my career with thishospital’, with anchors strongly dis-agree (1) and strongly agree (5). Orga-nizational citizenship behavior (OCB)was measured by a 4-item scale were

142


derived from the original scale (16items). These items were adopted fromthe original scale (16 items) developedby Smith, Organ and Near (1983). A4-item scale of OCB was considered inthis study due to unidimensionality rea-son of this measure.

Analysis

Data analysis was conducted intwo stages. Firstly, checking for dataentry includes validity and reliability ofvariables, identification outliers andnormality of the data. Unidimensional-ity of measures was assessed by Princi-pal Component Analysis (PCA). Sec-ondly, testing of a fit model was con-ducted by using Structural EquationModeling (SEM). AMOS 4.0 com-puter program was utilized to run datafrom questionnaires. ‘Goodness-of-fit’model were assessed by three criteria:absolute fit measure, incremental fitmeasure and parsimonious fit measure(Table 2).

Results

Demography of the Sample

The majority of the sample werefemale (86.4 percent) with a mean ageof 29.3 years (ranging between 20 to69 years). Seventy-six per cent wereunder 30 years of age, 15.1 percentwere between 30 and 40 years of age,6.8 percent were between 40 and 50years of age, and the remaining 2.1percent were above 50 years of age.Slightly more than half (53.3 percent)

reported being married or cohabiting.A fairly large proportion of the sample(56.8 percent) did not have children. Agreater number of nurses in currentsample have one child (23.4 percent).The education level reported was 29.9percent at the baccalaureate in nursinglevel, 67.2 percent at diploma level,and 3 percent at bachelor degree nurseslevel. The majority of educational levelof nurses was diploma level. The aver-age number of years as nurse in thissample was 8.3 years, which had thelargest proportion (42.6 percent) rang-ing between one to five years. Mean-while, the average employment withthe hospital was 6.6 years with thelargest proportion (57.4 percent) rang-ing between one to five years. Most ofthe nurses (57.4 percent) received lowlevel income, that is less thanIDR750,000.

Psychometric Properties of theScales

Each measurement variable wastested using principal factor analysis(PCA) to assess whether the itemsrepresent a single underlying construct.Unidimensionality of the construct canbe demonstrated by extracting a singlecomponent with an Eigen value greaterthan 1. Furthermore, items with factorloading 0.50 or greater are consideredpractically significant (Hair et al. 1998).Results of PCA asserted that not allmeasures indicated a single underly-ing construct. The construct of affec-tive commitment, and OCB providedmore than one factor. Therefore sev-

143


eral items were dropped from thoseinstruments. The psychometric prop-erties of scales are reported in Table 1.

The reliability of composite vari-ables is also presented in Table 1 usingcronbach alpha. Hair et al. (1998) sug-gested that usual lower limit forCronbach alpha is .70, but in explor-atory research (as is being conductedhere) this limit may decrease to .6. Thelarger reliability of the construct willindicate the smaller the error. The reli-ability implies high intercorrelationwithin the construct. Lack of high reli-ability is to a great extent accounted forwhen using structural equation model-ing (Bollen and Lennox 1991).Cronbach alpha of job satisfaction,procedural justice, distributive justice,affective commitment, and OCB is .69,.85, .91, .70, and .65, respectively.

The estimated correlation matrix forthe constructs can be seen in Table 1and shows that estimated correlationsamong constructs do not indicatemulticollinearity problem of lack ofdiscriminant validity.

Test of the Structural Model

The subsequent analysis for test-ing overall model and developed hy-potheses utilized structural equationmodeling by operating AMOS pro-gram. The objective of the test is toassess the goodness of fit between themodel and the sample data (Byrne2001). Hair et al (1998) recommendedthree types of goodness-of-fit measures,namely absolute fit measures, incre-mental fit measures, and parsimoniousfit measures (Table 2).

Table 1. Correlations, Alpha, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Job Satisfac-tion, Distributive Justice, Procedural justice, Affective Commitment,and OCB

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 Alpha Mean S.D N

JS (1) 1.00 .69 3.61 .58 383

DJ (2) .228(**) 1.00 .85 2.77 .89 383

PJ (3) .239(**) .565(**) 1.00 .91 2.69 .95 383

AC (4) .342(**) .053 .124(*) 1.00 .70 3.32 .65 383

OCB (5) ^ .121(*) .251(**) .101 .233(**) 1.00 .65 .636 .21 383

Note: ** significant at level p< 0.01, *significant at level p

144


Test of statistic for parameter es-timates is assessed by critical ratio(c.r.). It represents the parameter esti-mate divided by its standard error. Criti-cal ratio values which are larger than1.96 prove the path coefficient to bestatistically significant at level p< .05.The chi-square of the theoretical modelwas 18.601 with 5 degree of freedom(df). It was statistically significant atlevel p< .001. A nonsignificant chi-square shows support for believe thatthe differences of the predicted andactual matrices are not significant andit indicates an acceptable fit (Hair et al.1998). Therefore a nonsignificant chi-square is desired.

Statistical significance level ofchi-square indicates the probability that

the difference is due to solely to sam-pling variation. However, ‘statisticalnonsignificance does not assure theresearcher that another model wouldnot fit as well or better’ (Hair et al.1998, p. 654). In addition, the chi-square values are sensitive on samplesize. If the sample size becomes largeenough, significant differences will befound for specified model. Using the2 index represents little guidance indetermining to extent to which themodel does not fit (Byrne 2001). Forthis reason other fit indices (2/df; GFI;RMSEA; AGFI; TLI; NFI; CFI; RMR),that may minimize the effect of samplesize, are utilized to assess the fit model.The result of the structural equationstest of the composite variables indi-

Table 2. Evaluation of SEM with Goodness-of-fit Measures

Types of Measures Goodness-of-fit Measures Level

of Acceptable

Absolute Fit Measure

Incremental Fit Measure

Parsimonious Fit Measure

Goodness-of-fit index (GFI)

Root mean square error ofapproximation (RMSEA)

Adjusted goodness-of-fit index(AGFI)

Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)

Normed fit index (NFI)

Comparative Fit Index

Normed-chi-square (c2/df)

Greater than .90

Under .08

Greater than .90

Greater than .90

Greater than .90

Greater than .90

Lower limit 1.0

Upper limit 2.0/3.0or 5.0

Source: Adopted from Tabachnick and Fidell (2001); Hair et al. (1998); Byrne (2001)

145


cated that the theoretical modelachieved an acceptable fit to the data,(2/df = 3.72; GFI = .98; RMSEA =.09; AGFI = .94; TLI = .87; NFI = .92;CFI = .94; RMR = .027), which isabove the cutoffs for good fit. There-fore, the model indicates a good pre-dictor of this sample.

The results support the hypoth-esis 1 that the higher the level of pro-cedural justice perceived by employ-ees, the higher the level of their satis-faction with the job ( = .14*; signifi-

cant at level .05). The empiricalfindings also support hypothesis 2; thehigher the level of distributive justiceperceived by employees, the higherthe level of their satisfaction with the

job ( = .16*; significant at level .05). Similarly, the test shows a sig-nificant support for hypothesis 3; thehigher the level of job satisfaction per-ceived by employees, the higher thelevel of employees’ affective commit-

ment ( = .34**; significant at level .01). Subsequently, this study also findssupport for hypothesis 4; the higher the

level of affective commitment per-ceived by employees, the higher thelevel of organizational citizenship be-

havior ( = .16*; significant at level .05). Therefore, the statistical findingsof the study demonstrate empiricalsupport for all hypotheses.

Discussion

The part of the model supportsthat both distributive justice and pro-cedural justice as being significantantecedents of job satisfaction. Thepredicted influence of distributive jus-tice on job satisfaction supports theempirical evidence from previous study(Alexander and Ruderman 1987;Cropanzano and Greenberg 1997;Folger and Konovsky 1989). In termsof distributive justice, individuals’ re-actions to their organization are moredetermined by the amount and form ofcompensation they received ( = 0.16*,

significant at p 0.05). The findings ofthe present study showed that job sat-isfaction in the workplace is more de-

Table 3. Structural Model Equation Results

Hypothesis Path Standardize CriticalRegression Value

Weight

Hypothesis1 Procedural justice Job satisfaction 0.14* 2.15

Hypothesis2 Distributive justice Job satisfaction 0.16* 2.54

Hypothesis3 Job satisfaction Affective commitment 0.34** 6.67

Hypothesis4 Affective commitment OCB 0.16* 3.08

Note: All indexes are above the cutoffs for goodness of fit criteria. *p

146


termined by perception of distributivejustice. Employees’ perceptions of ajust allocation of resources are likelyto be influenced by how individualsassess their outcomes (rewards) andtheir contributions of inputs which ascompared to some comparison stan-dards, as explained in equity theory(Adam 1965).

Perceptions of distributive justiceare related to cognition decision whichstimulates exhibition of emotionalpositive (e.g. satisfaction) or negative(e.g. dissatisfaction) outcomes. Feel-ings of satisfaction towards employ-ees’ outcomes are likely to occur whenthere is a belief that the rewards re-ceived are equitable and proportionalrelative to others (Martin 1981). Inother words, employees feel satisfiedwith outcomes when they believe thatcontent of rewards they perceive to befair is higher than the contents of re-wards they perceive to be unfair(Cropanzano and Greenberg 1997).Therefore, employees who perceivefairness in terms of reward allocationare likely to have increased job satis-faction.

The model demonstrated that theprocedural justice contributes effecton job satisfaction. Although distribu-tive justice related to the amount ofreward they receive, perceived unfairof the reward decision-making proce-dure will also influence job satisfac-tion. In other words, impact of proce-dural justice also contributes to in-crease the level of job satisfaction (=

0.14*, significant at 0.05). Thesefindings are identical with the work of

Alexander and Ruderman (1987) andYoon (1996) who pointed out that bothdistributive and procedural justice canexplain level of satisfaction. Never-theless, to some extent procedural jus-tice might be more important than dis-tributive justice in explaining job sat-isfaction. For example, Yoon’s (1996)study found both procedural justiceand distributive justice have effect onjob satisfaction but the effect of proce-dural justice is greater that of distribu-tive justice. It is because individualsmay have great respect for group mem-bership for its own sake and moreemphasize on whether they receive anequitable decision-making procedurerather than the content of reward (Yoon1996).

As hypothesized in the earlier sec-tion (Hypothesis 3), the model demon-strated that job satisfaction has a posi-tive direct influence on affective com-mitment. The finding demonstratesconsistent result with empirical evi-dence of the previous research (e.g.,DeCotiis and Summers 1987; Meyer,Allen and Smith 1993; Wanous et al.1992). The result means that employ-ees who feel satisfied with their jobwill remain ‘affective committed’ tothe organization, as long as the ex-change relationship is satisfactory.Perceived job satisfaction, as conse-quence of the existing job circum-stances, can influence employees’ af-fective commitment. Affective com-mitment as an emotional attachmentmay develop on the basis of psycho-logically rewarding experiences (i.e.,contents and procedures how the re-

147


ward are established). Therefore, anindividual experiences positive emo-tional states, or happy with their job,will show a stronger emotional attach-ment to the organization.

Test of hypothesis 4 found thataffective commitment has a positivedirect effect on OCB. The part of themodel is consistent with previous em-pirical evidence (Bolon 1997; O’Reillyand Chatman 1986; Organ 1990; Or-gan and Ryan 1995; Shore and Wayne1993). It means that employees withstrong affective commitment will dem-onstrate a higher extra-role behavior(OCB). The basic concept of OCB is towhat extent the employees’ extra rolebehavior, which is not directly linkedto formal reward system, support theefficient and effective functions of or-ganization, as the behavior is reflectedin employees’ cooperatives, sponta-neous, and innovative response to theorganization (Organ 1988). The modeldenoted that affective commitment,which characterized by employees’emotional attachment to, identifica-tion with, and involvement in the orga-nization drives individuals to demon-strate citizenship behavior.

Meyer and Allen (1991) notedthat employees with strong affectivecommitment are more likely to make ahigh effort on behalf of the organiza-tion than normative or continuancecommitment. Employees with strongaffective commitment show a higherwillingness to contribute to achieveorganizational effectiveness by help-ing others with organizationally rel-

evant task. Their psychological attach-ment may stimulate an increase desirefor affiliation without direct links toreward system. Affective commitmentis more related to the social exchangeconcept rather than an economics ex-change. The link between affectivecommitment and OCB is that indi-viduals’ positive behavior in the work-place is not directly related to theirreward and individuals’ effort to im-prove the organizational effectivenessare beyond their job description. Mean-while, a job description is a reflectionof a psychological contract betweenthe employee and the organization.This psychological contract indicatesthe beliefs of the parties involved in anexchange relationship, regarding theirreciprocal obligations. Unlike the psy-chological contract, which requiresobligation to repay, the nature of OCBis based on voluntaryness which ischaracterized by the nature of innova-tive and spontaneous to achieve orga-nization objective.

Implications and Limitations

The research provides severalimplications for improvement of ourunderstanding of the relationshipamong work-related perceptions (i.e.,justice perceptions), attitudes (i.e., jobsatisfaction and affective commitment)and behavioral outcomes (i.e., OCB)in the Asian context’s, especially inIndonesia. First, researchers studyingorganizational citizenship behavior inthe health care industry in Indonesiamight be focused on perceived justice,

148


job satisfaction, and affective commit-ment as its antecedents. Organizationalcitizenship behavior can be view as asequential process which forms theworkers’ behavior to behave sponta-neously beyond their job descriptionin order to maintain organization’s ef-fectiveness. The results advocate thatthe organization is preferable to buildOCB by concerning in justice percep-tions, job satisfaction, and affectivecommitment.

Second, the findings demonstratethe importance of understanding theconsequences of perceived fairness byindividuals in the health care industry(i.e., hospitals and clinics) and that theeffect of procedural justice and dis-tributive justice on peoples’ attitudesmight be different. Managers must beaware that the impact of perceptions ofjustice in managing rewards, whichinclude the contents and the processes,does not only directly enhance jobsatisfaction but also can indirectlystrengthen affective commitment. Per-ception of justice can be improved inseveral ways, such as conducting sur-vey which will involve employees indetermining processes related to ben-efit decisions, providing flexibility inselecting their needs-benefit packages,providing adequate information on howcompensation is determined and man-aging employee’s complaint in a welland timely manner. Furthermore, pro-cedural justice may serve to minimizeemployees’ reaction to perceived un-equal outcome (e.g., pay raise).

Third, from the theoretical per-spective the study found additional

evidence that organizational justiceaffect job satisfaction, and job satis-faction appears to affect OCB. Organi-zation can increase the degree of em-ployees’ OCB by means of developingaffective commitment. Nevertheless,to develop affective commitment takestime longer than developing job satis-faction. Alternatively, in the mean time,organization can also directly controljob satisfaction through improvingperceived of fairness. Job satisfaction,as an attitude, can be increased asconsequence of the social interactionbetween individuals and situations thatinclude the functions of perceptions ofjustice.

The potential implications of thisstudy also can be viewed from thestrategic perspective of an organiza-tion. Internal adaptability of organiza-tion is deemed as an important precur-sor to adapting to external environ-mental change (Ostroff 1992). In keep-ing with the concept of citizenshipbehavior, OCB reflects a mechanismfor internal adaptability of an organi-zation, in which behavior is discre-tionary, not directly or explicitly rec-ognized by the formal reward systemand the aggregate promotes the effi-cient and effective functioning of or-ganization (Organ 1988). In otherwords, that mechanism to adapt exter-nal environmental changes requiresorganizational members to behaveabove and beyond the job requirementas well as their formal job descrip-tions. OCB has been seen as havingbeneficial organizational impacts inthe long-term, primarily in the service

149


industry (e.g., hospita ls). AsNetemeyer et al. (1997) said, ‘organi-zation with internal environments thatfoster OCBs might be able to adapt toexternal environmental changes morefluidly (p. 95).

Although the study has reviewedfairly comprehensive body of litera-ture, clearly, all research has limita-tion that provide an indication of thefuture research. First, the study testedthe model which reflected causal-ef-fect relation among its variables, and itwas examined simultaneously againstits dependent variables by using crosssectional data. However, the causal-effect relationship becomes increas-ingly apparent when established usinglongitudinal data. Thus, future researchis suggested to utilize longitudinal de-sign with appropriate time lag, mainlywith respect to studies with actual turn-over as dependent variable. Second,the data collection of this study reliedon self-reports. All variables in thestudy were measured from the samerespondents and attempts were madeto interpret their correlational nature.Because the measures come from thesame source, common method vari-ance problem could emerge to affectcorrelation among variables. In an ef-fort to minimize this problem, the scalesin the survey instruments were reor-dered so that the dependent variablesfollow the independent variables ratherthan precede them (Podsakoff and Or-gan 1986). Furthermore, results of prin-cipal factor analysis noted that theindicator variables fit with unobservedconstructs which they are purported to

measure. Therefore, common meth-ods variance is unlikely to confoundthe explanation of the findings. How-ever, it is recommended that this studybe replicated in order to establish thevalidity of the findings. Finally, thisstudy is designed to investigate factorsthat influence OCB. Although perhapsmany other factors influence that, thestudy has limited analysis to severalfactors which were identified from lit-erature. These are: procedural justice,distributive justice, job satisfaction,and affective commitment. It is ex-pected that the future studies to con-sider additional factors beyond thosevariables.

Conclusion

The tests of theoretical model ofthe research using AMOS softwareindicated that the model have met good-ness-of-fit criteria, thus, the interpre-tation of the model was fit with thedata. The major findings in this studyare that (a) both procedural and dis-tributive justice have a positive effectto job satisfaction, (b) job satisfactionhas a positive and strong effect onaffective commitment, and (c) affec-tive commitment has a direct effect toOCB.

The results of structural equationmodeling analysis suggested that or-ganization might increase citizenshipbehavior by means of strengthen em-ployees’ affective commitment. Thefindings exemplified that affectivecommitment is significantly precededby job satisfaction. The empirical evi-

150


dence also pointed out that both proce-dural justice and distributive justicehave an important effect to improvejob satisfaction. Finally this study pro-vides significant contribution to sup-port the argument that there is a directimpact of affective commitment onOCB when the job satisfaction is con-sidered as an antecedent of affectivecommitment. It can be concluded thatenhancement of job satisfaction ofworkers will lead to a higher level of

OCB through the effect of affectivecommitment. Therefore, this study rep-resents guidelines to help managersunderstanding how to increase organi-zational citizenship behavior by identi-fying its antecedents. In sum, citizen-ship behavior process might be por-trayed as psychological stages whichare affected by perception of justice,job satisfaction, and affective commit-ment, respectively.

References

Adam, JS 1965, ‘Injustice in social exchange’, in L Berkowitz (ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology, Academic Press, New York London, pp. 267-99.

Agho, A.O., C. W. Mueller, and J.L. Price. 1993. Determinants of employee jobsatisfaction: An empirical test of a causal model. Human Relations 46 (8): 1007-27.

Alexander, S., and M. Ruderman. 1987. The role of procedural and distributive justicein organizational behavior. Social Justice Research 1: 177-98.

Allen, N. J., and J. P. Meyer. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective,continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupa-tional Psychology 63 (1): 1-18.

Angle, H. L., and J. L. Perry. 1981. An empirical assessment of organizationalcommitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 26(1): 1-14.

Begley, T. M., and J. M. Czajka. 1993. Panel analysis of the moderating effects ofcommitment on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizationalchange. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (4): 552-56.

Bollen, K., and R. Lennox. 1991. Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structuralequation perspective. Psychological Bulletin 110 (2): 305-14.

Bolon, D.S. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior among hospital employees: Amultidimensional analysis involving job satisfaction and organizational commit-ment. Hospital and Health Services Administration 42 (2): 221-41.

Brayfield, A. H., and H. F. Rothe. 1951. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of AppliedPsychology 35 (5): 307-11.

Byrne, B. M. 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts,Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, N.J.: Multivariate applications bookseries, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

151


Cropanzano, R., and J. Greenberg. 1997. Progress in organizational justice: Tunnelingthrough the maze. In C. Cooper and I. Roberstson (eds), International Review ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology (12): 317-372. New York: John Wileyand Sons.

DeCotiis, T. A., and T. P. Summers. 1987. A path analysis of a model of the antecedentsand consequences of organizational commitment. Human Relations 40 (7): 445-70.

Deutsch, R. E. 1985. Tomorrow’s work force: New values in the workplace. The Futurist19 (6): 8-11.

Dyne, L. V ., and S. Ang. 1998. Organizational citizenship behavior of contingentworkers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal 41 (6): 692-703.

Fields, D., M. Pang, and C. Chiu. 2000. Distributive and procedural justice as predictorsof employee outcomes in Hong Kong. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21 (5):547-62.

Folger, R. and M.A. Konovsky. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice onreactions. Academy of Management Journal (32) 1: 115-30.

Folger, R., and C. L. Martin. 1989. Relative deprivation and referent cognition:Distributive and procedural justice effect. Journal of Experimental and SocialPsychology 22: 531-46.

Folger, R., and R. Cropanzano. 1998. Organizational Justice and Human ResourceManagement. Thousand Oaks: Foundations for organizational science, Sage Pub-lications.

Greenberg, J. 1987. A Taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy ofManagement. The Academy of Management Review 12 (1): 9-22.

___________. 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journalof Management 16 (2): 399-432.

___________. 1996, The quest for justice on the job : essays and experiments, SagePublications, Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Hair, J. R., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1998. Multivariate DataAnalysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Homans, G. C. 1961. Social Behavior : Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Braceand World.

Igalens, J., and P. Roussel. 1999. A study of the relationships between compensationpackage, work motivation and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior20 (7): 1003-25.

Jasso, G. 1980. A new theory of distributive justice. American Sociology Review 45: 3-32.

Konovsky, M. A., and S. D. Pugh. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange.Academy of Management Journal 37 (3) 656-69.

Lawler, E. E. 1971. Pay and Organizational Effectiveness: A Psychological View. NewYork: McGraw-Hill series in psychology, McGraw-Hill.

152


Lind, E. A., and T. R. Tyler. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. Criticalissues in Social Justice. New York: Plenum Press.

Lum, L., J. Kervin, K. Clark, R. Frank, and W. Sirola. 1998. Explaining nursing turnoverintent: Job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, or organizational commitment? Journal ofOrganizational Behavior 19: 305-20.

Martin, C. L., and N. Bennett. 1996. The role of justice judgments in explaining therelationship between job satisfaction and organization commitment. Group andOrganization Management 21 (1): 84-104.

Martin, J. 1981. Relative deprivation: A theory of distributive justice for an era ofshrinking resources. In CL. L., and B. M. Staw (eds), Research in OrganizationalBehavior 3: 53-108. CT, Greenwich: JAI Press.

Mathieu, J. E., and D. M. Zajac. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulle-tin 108 (2): 171-94.

McFarlin, D. B., and P. D. Sweeney. 1992. Distributive and procedural justice aspredictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy ofManagement Journal 35 (3): 626.

Meyer, J. P., and N. J. Allen. 1984. Testing the “Side-Bet Theory’’ of organizationalcommitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology69 (3): 372-78.

__________. 1987. A longitudinal analysis of the early development and consequencesof organizational commitment. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 19: 199-215.

__________. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commit-ment. Human Resources Management Review 1 (1): 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., N. J. Allen, and C. A. Smith. 1993. Commitment to organizations andoccupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal ofApplied Psychology 78 (4): 538-51.

Meyer, J. P., D. J. Stanley, L. Hersecovith, and L. Topolnytsky. 2000. Affective,continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis ofantecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 61: 20-52.

Morrison, E. W. 1994. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: Theimportance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal 37:1543-67.

Mowday, R. T., R. M. Steers, and L. W. Porter. 1979. The measurement of organizationalcommitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 14: 224-47.

Mowday, R. T, L. W. Porter, and R. M. Steers. 1982. Employee-organization linkages:The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. Organizational andOccupational Psychology. New York: Academic Press.

153


Netemeyer, R. G., J. S. Boles, D. O. McKee, and R. McMurrian. 1997. An investigationinto the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal sellingcontext. Journal of Marketing 61 (3): 85-98.

O’Reilly, C. A., and J. Chatman. 1986. Organizational commitment and psychologicalattachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization onprosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3): 492-9.

Organ, D. W. 1987. The Applied Psychology of Work Behavior : A Book of Readings (3rd

ed.). Plano, Tex: Business Publications.

__________. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior : The good soldier syndrome.Issues in Organization and Management Series. Lexington, Mass.: LexingtonBooks.

__________. 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior.Research in Organizational Behavior 12 (4): 43-72.

Organ, D. W., and K. Ryan. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositionalpredictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology 48 (4):775-802.

Ostroff, C. 1992. The relationship between satisfaction, attitude, and performance: Anorganizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 6 (77): 963-74.

Podsakoff, P. M., and D. W. Organ. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research:Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12 (4): 531-44.

Porter, L. W., R. M. Steers, R. T. Mowday, and P. V. Boulian. 1974. Organizationalcommitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journalof Applied Psychology 59: 603-9.

Price, J. L., and C. W. Mueller. 1986. Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees.Monographs in Organizational Behavior and Industrial Relations. Greenwich,Conn.: JAI Press.

Scarpello, V., and F. F. Jones. 1996. Why justice matters in compensation decisionmaking. Journal of Organizational Behavior 17 (3): 285-99.

Schappe, S. P. 1998. The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, andfairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Psy-chology 132 (3): 277-90.

Shore, L. M., and S. J. Wayne. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: Comparisonof affective c. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (5): 774-80.

Smith, C. A., D. W. Organ, and J. P. Near. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior:Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68 (4): 653-63.

Sweeney, P. D., and D. B. McFarlin. 1997. Process and outcome: Gender differences inthe assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18 (1): 83-98.

Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics (4th edn.). Boston,Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Tremblay, M, B. Sire, and D. B. Balkin. 2000. The role of organizational justice in payand employee benefit satisfaction, and its effects on work attitudes. Group andOrganization Management 25 (3): 269-90.

154


Tyler, T. R., K. Rasinki, and K. McGraw. 1985. The influence of perceived injustice onthe endorsement of political leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology 15: 700-25.

Wanous, J. P., T. D. Poland, and S. L. Premack, and K. S. Davis. 1992. The effects of metexpectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology 77 (3): 288-97.

Wiener, Y. 1982. Commitment in organizations: A normative wiew. Academy ofManagement. The Academy of Management Review 7 (3): 418-28.

Williams, L. J., and J. T. Hazer. 1986. Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction andcommitment in turnover models: A reanalysis using latent variable structuralequation methods. Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (2): 219-31.

Williams, L. J., and S. E. Anderson. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commit-ment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal ofManagement 17: 601-17.

Yoon, J. 1996. Fairness issues and job satisfaction among Korean employees: Thesignificance of status value and procedural justice in work orientation. Social JusticeResearch (9) 2: 121-43.

Yoon, J., and S. R. Thye. 2002. A dual process model of organizational commitment: Jobsatisfaction and organizational support. Work and Occupations 29 (1): 97-124.

a test of the relationships among perceptions ...132 gadjah mada international journal of business,...

Documents