Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Impact of Organizational Justice on Employee
Performance: Mediating Role of Emotional Intelligence:
An Analysis of Public Sector Organizations of Pakistan Adil Tahir Pracha
*, Summera Malik
†, Malik Faisal Azeem
‡ and
Robina Yasmin§
Abstract The current study purposely investigated the relationship of
organizational justices with employee performance with the mediating
role of emotional intelligence in three public sector organizations of
Pakistan with the reason of addressing the potential issues associated
with employee performance which have not been addressed yet in
Pakistani context. Quantitative data collection from three public sector
organizations of Pakistan i.e. State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), NADRA
and OGDCL, using a self-administered questionnaire survey method,
the study followed simple random sampling technique with the sample
of 342 questionnaires. The study results designated that organizational
justice is positively associated with employee performance with the
mediating role of emotional intelligence which exhibits that there is a
dire need to address emotional intelligence which is inevitable between
the relationship of organizational justice and employee performance.
Keywords: Organizational Justice; Employee Performance;
Emotional Intelligence; Distributive Justice; Procedural Justice]
Introduction
The concept of Organizational Justice (OJ) underlines the
managers‟ decisions, perceived equality, impact of justice, and the
relationship between individuals and the environment they are in
with some objectivity in organizations. According to Sert, Elci,
Uslu, and Şener (2014), enforcement of rules, policies and
procedures upon employee may create the perception of
injustice/unfairness which may result in workplace problems.
People evaluate justice in their organizations and respond to justice
or injustice considering the basic concerns for understanding the
* Adil Tahir Pracha, PhD Scholar, Department of Business Administration,
IQRA University, Islamabad, Pakistan, [email protected] † Summera Malik, PhD Scholar, Department of Education, International Islamic
University, Islamabad, Pakistan. ‡ Malik Faisal Azeem, Assistant Professor, Department of Management
Sciences, COMSATS Institute of IT, Islamabad, Pakistan, § Robina Yasmin, Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration,
IQRA University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 316 Volume XI Number 03
organizational behavior (Yaghoubi, Saghaian Nejad, Abolghasem
Gorji, Norozi, & Rezaie, 2009). Ability to accomplish goals (either
personal or organizational) by using organizational resources
proficiently leads to the increased employee performance (Daft,
2001). Injustice in rewards, compensation and unfair treatment
against other employees affect the performance of the both i.e.
employee and the organization. People respond positively towards
their work associated outcomes if receive impartial treatment from
their managers and additionally efforts by management in the area
of organizational justice results in low level of discrimination
(Cho, 2017)
According to Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001),
employee dissatisfaction due to unjust interactions with the
supervisors results in the decreased employee performance.
Activities performed by individuals over a period of time are
measured against organizations‟ standards and procedures to
acquire rewards, support and expected efforts by
employee(Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998). According to Salovey
and Mayer (1990), emotional intelligence can be interpreted as the
capacity to screen one's own particular and others' emotions and
feelings. (Emmerling & Goleman, 2003) focus on self-awareness,
self-regulation, self-motivation, social awareness (empathy), and
social abilities (relationship management) associated with
emotional intelligence. Due to injustice interactions with the
supervisors, dissatisfaction prevails which results in decreased
employee performance (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). The
study focuses upon the examination of the relationship between OJ
with EP with the mediating role of EI in three public sector
organizations of Pakistan with the reason of addressing the
potential issues associated with employee performance and have
not been addressed yet in Pakistani context.
The first selected organization for the current study is
National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA) which is
one of the leading integrated systems, provides operating solutions
for global identification system for corporate and public-sector
clients. NADRA employed approximately 17103 employees with
365 multi-biometric registration centers, 189 mobile vans, 199
semi-mobile units, two data-centers and 95 million computerized
national identity cards (CNIC) issued to contribute toward the
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 317 Volume XI Number 03
biggest databases incorporated around the globe. The second
selected organization is State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) which is the
central bank of Pakistan constituted under Order 1948 with the
liability to control the issue of certified receipts and keeping of
money reserves with a perspective to securing fiscal security and
credit arrangement for further purposes in Pakistan. In 1994 SBP
was given full autonomy for financial sector reforms and currently
has U.S $ 12.03 billion reserves. SPB-PMD (State Bank of
Pakistan Personnel Management Department) continued to
advance its strategic contribution towards attainment of
organizational objectives by providing them appropriate training,
leadership development and reliable succession planning. The total
number of employees at SBP was approximately 3,106 in 2014.
The third selected organization is Oil and Gas Development
Company Limited (OGDCL), a multinational gas and lubricant
exploration company of Pakistan. OGDCL was incorporated under
the Ordinance dated 20th September 1961. In 2013, its annual
income was Rs. 223.365 billion and benefits before assessment
taking off was Rs. 90.777 billion. OGDCL has total strength of
10,297 employees out of which 246 are working on contract basis
with daily production, including share from joint ventures
averaged 39,659 barrels (6,305.3 m3) of oil; 937 million cubic feet
(26,500,000 m3) of gas, and 358 metric tons of liquefied petroleum
gas.
Objectives of the study:
1. To explore the relationship of Organizational Justice and its
dimensions (Distributive, Procedural, Interactional justice)
with Employee Performance
2. To evaluate how do emotions play a role of mediator between
Organizational Justice and Employee Performance.
Literature Review
Organizational Justice (OJ):
Justice is considered as an essential component in
understanding organizational behavior (Van den Bos, 2001). OJ is
associated with employees‟ perception regarding fair treatment by
their organization (Wang, Lu, & Siu, 2015). According to (Adams,
1965), justice is an individual's observations about the decency of
choices and policymaking procedures inside of associations and
the impacts of those recognitions on conduct. According to
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 318 Volume XI Number 03
McDowall and Fletcher (2004), study i.e. (Greenberg & Bies,
1992) introduced the concept “Organizational Justice” which refers
to the perceptions of people with regard to fairness in
organizational settings. They believed that managers‟ behavior can
influence the performance effectively through their fairness in
interaction, their behavior, and unbiased distribution of rewards
and resources among employees.
Equity has three-dimensions i.e. distributive, procedural
and interactional justice (McDowall & Fletcher, 2004). McDowall
and Fletcher (2004) further narrate that organizational justice
creates an impact on work-related variable and clarifies that why
workers counter against discriminatory results/improper
procedures and cooperation (Alsalem & Alhaiani, 2007). Justice,
according to Ohana (2014) is spread in the organization by
spreading its signals of actions related to justice. According to
Moorman (1991), “Justice is the basis of all appropriate actions to
maintain fairness in the organization among employees to be self-
motivated and satisfied to produce better performance.” According
to Hannam and Narayan (2015) employees who are intrinsically
motivated considered their environment as fair compared to the
participants who did not take interest in their task. Fair behaviors at
work is identified in three elements of justice i.e. distributive
justice, procedural justice and interactional justice (Cropanzano,
Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). Organization justice is
undoubtedly an important characteristic because the employees
having negative behavior toward organizational practices are de-
motivated which leads them toward adverse individual and
organizational outcomes furthermore organizational justice
positively impacts the link between job demands on turnover
intentions also organizational justice reinforce the role of job
control (Proost, Verboon, & Van Ruysseveldt, 2015)
OJ broadly covers three dimensions; Distributive,
Procedural, and Interactional justice. Distributive Justice (DJ) is
the amounts of reimbursement receives is perceived to be
impartially distributed among employees, whereas Procedural
Justice (PJ) talks about the fairness among organizational
procedures and their outcomes (Folger & Konovsky, 1989).
Interactional Justice (IJ), is an impartial treatment that one receives
against others employee in any organization. IJ includes two sub-
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 319 Volume XI Number 03
dimensions i.e. Interpersonal Justice and Informational Justice
(Dusterhoff, Cunningham, & MacGregor, 2014; Walumbwa,
Cropanzano, & Hartnell, 2009). Interpersonal Justice is defined as
the unbiased admiration and dignity that one gets from their
supervisor and informational justice talks about to the procurement
of accepting satisfactory data and social inclusion between
supervisor and employee. Studies i.e. (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson,
Porter, & Ng, 2001; Ensher, Grant-Vallone, & Donaldson, 2001)
confirmed the division of organizational justice into distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice by inspecting the biasness in
organizational settings which is truly considered as injustice by the
employees. OJ acumens instigate new thinking patterns regarding
justice and its effect on employee attitudes, particularly while
organizational change phases(Marzucco, Marique, Stinglhamber,
De Roeck, & Hansez, 2014).
Distributive Justice (DJ): Distributive Justice (DJ)
exhibits the positive perception of employees toward rewards such
as compensation or promotions as per their expectations. DJ is the
intended equality regarding results as appropriate imbursement
against employee efforts and opportunities for career advancement
(Demers & Wang, 2010). According to a study i.e. (Ohana &
Meyer, 2016) distributive justice positively links to the
organization affective commitment.
Procedural Justice (PJ): Folger and Konovsky (1989)
state that the rewards among the employees distributed on the
bases of fair practices and values is PJ. According to Erdogan
(2003), PJ is identified the decency of methods by which execution
is assessed. PJ is also concerned with the degree of the basic
components of policy-making (assignment procedure),
encouragement of workers‟ voice, suitability of criteria, and the
accuracy of the data i.e. used to land at a decisional result (Aryee,
Chen, & Budhwar, 2004) which ultimately leads to enhanced
employee performance. Van Dijke, De Cremer, Brebels, and Van
Quaquebeke (2015) suggested factors in order to effectively
implement procedural justice and it stimulates employee
cooperation.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 320 Volume XI Number 03
Interactional Justice (IJ): According to Moorman (1991),
the manner in which procedures are carried out fairly is known as
IJ. A justifiable account in decisions process given to the
employees would affect their overall performance as well as the
performance of their organization. According to Huang and Huang
(2016) procedural justice strengthens the interactional justice-
silence relationship. Employees are given importance during their
interpersonal interaction with their managers, the way they should
be treated. A quality of interrelated attitude while making pre and
post decisions in interaction among employees refer to IJ (Poole,
2007). IJ also refers to an interpersonal behaviors while
demonstrating the organizational procedures and delivering their
outcome (Hoffman & Kelley, 2000). Interactional equity is
characterized as the nature of communication that an individual
acquires during the enactment for the establishment of
authoritative methodology (Yılmaz & Taşdan, 2009).
Emotional Intelligence (EI)
Intelligence is the capacity and aptitude to learn and
embrace the environmental changes (Sternberg & Detterman,
1986; Terman, 1921; Wechsler, 1997). Intelligence is also known
as the ability to judge „true‟ from „false‟. EI, according to (Mathew
& Gupta, 2015) is considering emotions as an asset as they convey
something. Wechsler (1940) initially describes intelligence as an
impact as opposed to a reason. Studies (Mayer & Geher, 1996;
Mayer & Salovey, 1993) define the term EI under the category of
social intelligence which demonstrates the ability to monitor and
control emotions and attitudes against the provided information
about oneself and others‟ to take appropriate measures and actions
on it. (Emmerling & Goleman, 2003) state that EI is the aptitude to
recognize and manage self-emotions and the emotions of others,
for the individual self-motivation to manage their relationship with
other. Employees‟ Emotional intelligence positively effects the
organizational performance (Adetula, 2016). According to
Al‐ Hamdan, Oweidat, Al‐ Faouri, and Codier (2017) a positive
relationship exists between emotional intelligence and job
performance.
Literature exhibits a significant relationship between
employee performance and justice in the organizations. OJ
literature also demonstrate that the perceived fairness can influence
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 321 Volume XI Number 03
behaviors, manners and attitudes of employees in the organization
(Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2001). The practices of
fair rewards provision, unbiased appreciation and appropriate
feedback provision to the employees are compared among the
employees which can be illustrated in the following equation:
Individual outputs Other individual outputs
Individual inputs Other individual inputs
Equity Theory demonstrates that the individuals compare
their inputs and results from the inputs and results of others. Inputs
are what they contribute into their occupation and results are what
they attain consequently (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). Employees
become de-motivated and dissatisfied if they have a feeling of
unfair treatment in comparison with other employees in their
organization. Consequently, employees cognitively react if
distribution of rewards and compensations is fair or unfair, an
employee feel satisfied or dissatisfied and show their commitment
toward organizations followed by their behavioral intension to stay
or quit the organization (Mowday & Colwell, 2003). According to
Meisler and Vigoda-Gadot (2014), emotional intelligence has
significant association with organizational politics and employee
behavior and their work attitude.
Employee Performance (EP) is defined as an employee
aptitude to use resources efficiently and effectively to accomplish
(personal or organizational) objectives (Daft, 2001). According to
Adams (1965), employees seek social equity in distribution of
rewards for their performance. Pradhan, Jena, and Bhattacharya
(2016) confirm the association of EI with job performance with the
focus on feelings. Thus if performance of individuals increases,
organizational effectiveness will also be enhanced (Champathes,
2006). Emotional intelligence (EI) is positively associated with
leader member exchange theory with the demonstration of positive
forward planning of procedural and distributive justice (Karim,
2011).
Literature shows that valid connections exist between
employee emotional intelligence and performance (Altındağ &
Kösedağı, 2015; Goleman & Cherniss, 2001; Kahn, 1990; Sony &
Mekoth, 2016). Moreover, Quebbeman and Rozell (2002) describe
=
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 322 Volume XI Number 03
the strong connection of EI with behavioral results and justice
perception. Vakola, Tsaousis, and Nikolaou (2004) narrate that
intellectual abilities add to a greater knowledge for implementing
fair procedure in organization. EI is a noteworthy standard
regarding advancement, performance and enlisting of people.
Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis
Figure 1: Theoretical Model
Research Hypothesis The research formulated three hypotheses i.e.
H1: Organizational Justices has significance impact on Employee
Performance.
H2: Organizational Justice has significant impact on Emotional
Intelligence.
H3: There is a mediating role of Emotional Intelligence between the
relationship of Organizational Justice and Employee Performance.
Research Methodology
Methodology adopted for the current study was quantitative and
the data was collected from three public sector organizations of Pakistan.
Out of 400 distributed questionnaires 342 were received fit for analysis.
The data was collected through self-administered survey using simple
random sampling technique from the employees of said three public
sectors organizations i.e. SBP, NADRA and OGDCL. List of the
employee was randomized using a randomization function in MS Excel
by their employers. The study settings were non-contrived and unit of
analysis was the employee working in the said public sector organization
in Pakistan.
The study sample (Uma & Roger, 2003) shown in the table 1.
Table 1: Population Model
Sr. No. Organization ISB RWP Total
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 323 Volume XI Number 03
A questionnaire with 31 items was used which were structured as
a research instrument. The questionnaire included 20-item related
Organizational Justice (OJ) in which 5 items (Colquitt, 2001) of
Procedural Justice (PJ), 5 items of Distributive Justice (DJ), 10 items of
Interactional and Informative Justice (IJ) (Colquitt, 2001) were used.
Moreover 6 items of Emotional Intelligence (EI) (Mayer, Salovey,
Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001) and 5 items of Employee Performance (EP)
were used in the questionnaire. The study used 5 point lickert scale
ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagreed to 5 = Strongly Agreed.
Analysis and Results
Descriptive Statistics: Descriptive statistics illustrate demographics of
the respondents mentioned questionnaire information included
organization, gender, age, education, designation, departments and
experience of respondents. Total number responses are 342 out of 400
questionnaires distributed among the employees of the said public sector
organizations.
Table 2: Research Demographics
Demographics Freq Demo Freq Demo Freq
Gender Designation Exp
Male 248 Lower 89 1 - 5 year 104
Female 94 Middle 243 6 - 10 year 113
Top 10 11 - 15 year 60
Age Education 16 -20 year 36
below 25 45 Matric 3 21 - 25 year 26
26-35 99 Intermediate 8 26 – above
year
-
36-45 85 Graduate 309 Not Provided
(NP)
3
46-55 69 Post-
Graduate
20
56 & above 44 M-Phil 2
Reliability: The reliability instrument is measured through Cronbach‟s
alpha and split-half method. The study examines of reliability which
1. SBP 47 65 112
2. NADRA 89 68 157
3. OGDCL 73 - 73
Total 209 133 342
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 324 Volume XI Number 03
shows the Cronbach‟s alpha ranges from 0.647 to 0.923 with overall total
alpha value are 0.946 as shown in Table 3. The ranges show greater
internal consistency of the construct. The values of Cronbach‟s alpha
were analyzed independently and collectively. Table 3: Reliability Analysis
Correlation: The Correlation analysis is used to measure the
relationship among the variable. The results exhibited the positive
and strong correlation among the selected study variables. Table 4: Pearson Correlation (r)
Pearson Correlation (r)
OJ EI EP
OJ 1 0.782** 0.864**
EI 0.782** 1 0.694**
EP .864** 0.694** 1
The investigation of results demonstrates that OJ correlates
with EI at 0.782 levels, whereas it correlates with EP at 0.864
which shows strong positive correlation. Each variable shows
significance at all levels. Therefore, it can be concluded from the
table 4, that the organizational justice has a positive relationship
with employee performance and emotional intelligence.
Employees‟ perception of fairness in each organizational practice
is effectively confirmed positive relationship. When employee
perception regarding justice is high, greater employee satisfaction
is attained and when the justice perception is low, there will be
greater dissatisfaction.
Regression and Mediation
Emotional Intelligence (EI) acts as a mediator in the model
whereas organizational justice has been placed as independent and
employee performance as dependent variable.
Variables Cronbach’s Alpha No. of Items
Organizational
Justice 0.923 20
Emotional
Intelligence 0.647 6
Employee
Performance 0.820 5
Overall Scale 0.946 31
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 325 Volume XI Number 03
Fig 1. Regression and Mediation
Equations (1) Y= β +β x1 + e
Y= EP
X= OJ
(2) Y=β + β x1 + e
Y= EI
X= HR
(3) Y= β + β1x1 + β2x2 + e
Y= EP
x1 = OJ
x2= EI
Table 5: Standardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Std. Error Beta
OJ .031 .864 31.646 .000
a. Dependent Variable: EP
Table 6: Model summary of Independent Variable Organizational
Justice
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
1 .864a .747 .746
Table 7: Standardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
a (2) Organizational
Justice (OJ)
Employee
Performance
(EP)
Emotional
Intelligence
(EI)
Organizational
Justice (OJ) Employee
Performance
(EP)
a (2)
C (3)
b (3)
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 326 Volume XI Number 03
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
T Sig.
Std. Error Beta
OJ .031 .782 23.167 .000
a. Dependent Variable: EI
Table 8: Model summary of Independent Variable Organizational
Justice
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
1 .782a .612 .611
Table 9: Standardized Coefficients
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Std. Error Beta
EI .048 .694 17.76 .000
a. Dependent Variable: EP
Table 10: Model summary of Independent Variable Emotional
Intelligence
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
1 .694a .481 .480
Table 11: Standardized Coefficients
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Std. Error Beta
OJ
EI
.050 .320 18.890 .000
.054 .694 17.767 .000
a. Dependent Variable: EP
Table 12: Model summary of Independent Variable Organizational
Justice & Emotional Intelligence
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
1 .889a .847 .846
a*b = 0.782 * 0.694
= 0.54
c-c’ = 0.864 - 0.320
= 0.54
Hence for mediation a*b = c-c’
0.54 =0.54
Therefore partial mediation exists.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 327 Volume XI Number 03
Discussion
H1. There is the significant impact of Organization Justice
on Employee Performance.
The path ‘c’ which is equation (1) indicated a positive
correlation exists between Organization Justice (OJ) and Employee
Performance (EP). Beta value i.e. 0.864 means 1 unit increase in
Organization Justice will increase 0.864 units in Employee Performance.
In addition to this the T-value (i.e. t=31.646 > 2) shows that H1 is
accepted and Organization Justice (OJ) has a significant positive impact
on Employee Performance (EP).
H2. There is significant impact of Organization Justice on
Emotional Intelligence.
Likewise path ‘a’ is an equation to verify the impact of
Organization Justice (OJ) on Emotional Intelligence (EI). Beta value of
path ‘a’ is 0.782 thus 1 unit increase Organization Justice (OJ) will
increase 0.782 units of emotional intelligence (EI). Results directed
towards positive association between OJ and EI. T-value = 23.167,
which accepts the hypothesis i.e. H2 with its value > 2.
H3. There is a mediating role of Emotional Intelligence
between the relationship of Organizational Justice and Employee
Performance.
Third hypothesis demonstrated that emotional intelligence (EI)
can be a mediator between organization justice (OJ) and employee
performance (EP) in Pakistani context. Hence OJ and EP are positively
associated with each other. The mediation test was run in which EP was
taken as a dependent variable and path „b‟ and „c‟ were analyzed
together. Beta value on path „b‟ was 0.694 and path c‟ was 0.320 which
indicated that 1 unit increase in Organization Justice (OJ) would increase
0.369 units of Employee Performance (EP) and simultaneously 1 unit
increase in Emotional Intelligence (EI), increases 0.694 unit in employee
performance (EP). T-value of both paths is 31.646 and 17.767 i.e. >2
respectively confirms the hypothesis i.e. H3 for mediation.
a * b = c-c’
Hence both sides are equaled so partial mediation exist
Emotional Intelligence (EI) plays a mediating role between Organization
Justice (OJ) and Employee Performance (EP). Moreover, R2 value
shows the impact of independent variables upon dependent variables i.e.
how much variance an independent variable can bring in depended
variable. R2 value = 0.847 which shows that 85% variation in dependent
variable is explained by independent variable results shows that overall
model is statistically significant.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 328 Volume XI Number 03
Conclusion
The current study was led to investigate the relationship of
Organizational Justices with Employee Performance with the mediating
role of emotional intelligence between them. For this reason, three public
sector organizations were chosen in the study. The consistency among
study variables is acceptable and the regression analysis shows partial
mediation exists among all variables. The Pearson Correlation test
demonstrated positive correlation between Organizational Justice (i.e.
Distributive, Interactional and Procedural justice) and employee
performance following the rout of emotional intelligence in the selected
public sector organizations of Pakistan. All three hypothesis have been
accepted which show significant impact of Organizational Justice (OJ)
and Employee Performance (EP) through the mediation of Emotional
Intelligence. In order to improve the performance of the employees,
organizations need to identify negative behaviors regarding unequal
distribution of resources/assets, discrimination or bias information
provision that should be eliminated to increase productivity. Descriptive
statistics indicated that the majority of employees ensured positive
perceptions regarding organizational justice in their respective
organizations and indicated greater satisfaction toward perceived fairness
in procedures, provision of rewards and interactions with their managers.
The study results designate that Organizational Justice (OJ) is
positively associated with Employee Performance (EP) in Pakistani
context which is also supported by the literature as Greenberg (1987)
investigated that relationship between Organizational Justices (OJ) and
Employee Performance (EP) exists. Moreover he also stated that fair
actions, impartial feedback (information) and equal distribution of assets
towards employees by the supervisors can influence their performance.
According to Shan, Ishaq, and Shaheen (2015), employee needs and
outcomes may vary thus need equitable treatment which will result in
varying performance. The perceived fairness can influence individuals‟
behaviors, and approaches. Studies i.e. Russell Cropanzano et al., (2001)
also confirmed the perceived fairness can influence behaviors, manner
and attitudes of employees in the organization. The study also revealed
that there is a strong connection between employee emotional
intelligence and performance (Campion et al., 1996; Goleman &
Cherniss, 2001)
Recommendation, Limitations and Future Direction
The study findings conclude that Organizational Justice (OJ)
factors positively affect employee performance in the selected public-
sector organizations (i.e. State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), NADRA and
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 329 Volume XI Number 03
OGDCL) of Pakistan and fairness perception among employees can be
enhanced through intellectual attitude in organization which leads to the
enhanced employee performance. Keeping in view the study results, the
said organizations should be more focused on improving emotional
intellectual capabilities of their employees, should acknowledge the
contribution and efforts of their employees and should provide equal
opportunities to all the employees irrespective of any discrimination or
biasness,
Future directions may cater for the comparative analysis of
public and private sector organizations considering larger sample size.
Moreover other dimensions of Organizational Justice (OJ) and Emotional
Intelligence (EI) can also be incorporated in future research. Future
research may have additional reasons to clarify the demographic group
variations in the study.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 330 Volume XI Number 03
References: Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental
social psychology, 2, 267-299.
Adetula, G. A. (2016). Emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence as
predictors of job performance among law enforcement agency
personnel. Journal of Applied Security Research, 11(2), 149-165.
Al‐Hamdan, Z., Oweidat, I. A., Al‐Faouri, I., & Codier, E. (2017). Correlating
Emotional intelligence and job performance among jordanian
hospitals’ registered nurses. Paper presented at the Nursing forum.
Alsalem, M., & Alhaiani, A. (2007). Relationship between organizational justice
and employees performance. Aledari, 108, 97-110.
Altındağ, E., & Kösedağı, Y. (2015). The relationship between emotional
intelligence of managers, innovative corporate culture and employee
performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 210, 270-282.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., & Budhwar, P. S. (2004). Exchange fairness and
employee performance: An examination of the relationship between
organizational politics and procedural justice. Organizational behavior
and human decision processes, 94(1), 1-14.
Bies, R., & Moag, R. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of
fairness in: RJ Lewicki, BH Sheppard, MH Bazerman (eds.) Research
on negotiations in organizations (pp. 43-55): Greenwich: 1JAI Press.
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between
work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and
extension. Personnel Psychology, 49(2), 429-452.
Champathes, M. R. (2006). Coaching for performance improvement: the
“COACH” model. Development and Learning in Organizations: An
International Journal, 20(2), 17-18.
Cho, Y. J. (2017). Organizational justice and complaints in the US federal
workplace. International Review of Public Administration, 22(2), 172-
192.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations:
A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 86(2), 278-321.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a
construct validation of a measure. Journal of applied psychology,
86(3), 386.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001).
Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of
organizational justice research: American Psychological Association.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral
virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of
organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164-209.
Daft, R. L. (2001). Essentials of organization theory and design: South Western
Educational Publishing.
Demers, E. A., & Wang, C. (2010). The impact of CEO career concerns on
accruals based and real earnings management.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 331 Volume XI Number 03
Dusterhoff, C., Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2014). The effects of
performance rating, leader–member exchange, perceived utility, and
organizational justice on performance appraisal satisfaction: Applying a
moral judgment perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 265-
273.
Emmerling, R., & Goleman, D. (2003). Emotional Intelligence: Issues and
Common Misunderstandings. Issues in Emotional Intelligence,[On-line
serial], 1 (1).
Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Effects of
perceived discrimation on job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
organizational citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 12(1), 53.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive
justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management
journal, 32(1), 115-130.
Goleman, D., & Cherniss, C. (2001). The emotionally intelligent workplace:
How to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in
individuals, groups, and organizations: Jossey-Bass.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of
management review, 12(1), 9-22.
Greenberg, J., & Bies, R. J. (1992). Establishing the role of empirical studies of
organizational justice in philosophical inquiries into business ethics.
Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5), 433-444.
Hannam, K., & Narayan, A. (2015). Intrinsic motivation, organizational justice,
and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(2), 214-224.
Hoffman, K. D., & Kelley, S. W. (2000). Perceived justice needs and recovery
evaluation: a contingency approach. European Journal of Marketing,
34(3/4), 418-433.
Huang, L., & Huang, W. (2016). Interactional justice and employee silence: The
roles of procedural justice and affect. Social Behavior and Personality:
an international journal, 44(5), 837-852.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management journal, 33(4), 692-
724.
Karim, J. (2011). Emotional intelligence, leader-member exchange,
organizational justice, and outcome variables: A conceptual model.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(3), 390-411.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships: General Learning
Press Morristown, NJ.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? Social
exchange (pp. 27-55): Springer.
Marzucco, L., Marique, G., Stinglhamber, F., De Roeck, K., & Hansez, I.
(2014). Justice and employee attitudes during organizational change:
The mediating role of overall justice. Revue Européenne de
Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 64(6),
289-298.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 332 Volume XI Number 03
Mathew, M., & Gupta, K. (2015). Transformational leadership: Emotional
intelligence. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 12(2), 75.
Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identification
of emotion. Intelligence, 22(2), 89-113.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence.
Intelligence, 17(4), 433-442.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional
intelligence as a standard intelligence.
McDowall, A., & Fletcher, C. (2004). Employee development: an organizational
justice perspective. Personnel review, 33(1), 8-29.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as
predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes.
Academy of Management journal, 35(3), 626-637.
Meisler, G., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2014). Perceived organizational politics,
emotional intelligence and work outcomes: empirical exploration of
direct and indirect effects. Personnel review, 43(1), 116-135.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence
employee citizenship? Journal of applied psychology, 76(6), 845.
Mowday, R. T., & Colwell, K. A. (2003). Employee reactions to unfair
outcomes in the workplace: The contributions of Adams‟ equity theory
to understanding work motivation. Motivation and work behavior, 7,
65-82.
Ohana, M. (2014). A multilevel study of the relationship between organizational
justice and affective commitment: The moderating role of
organizational size and tenure. Personnel review, 43(5), 654-671.
Ohana, M., & Meyer, M. (2016). Distributive justice and affective commitment
in nonprofit organizations: Which referent matters? Employee
Relations, 38(6), 841-858.
Poole, W. L. (2007). Organizational justice as a framework for understanding
union-management relations in education. Canadian Journal of
Education, 30(3), 725.
Pradhan, R. K., Jena, L. K., & Bhattacharya, P. (2016). Impact of psychological
capital on organizational citizenship behavior: Moderating role of
emotional intelligence. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1),
1194174.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Distributive justice. Handbook of
organizational measurement, 122-127.
Proost, K., Verboon, P., & Van Ruysseveldt, J. (2015). Organizational justice as
buffer against stressful job demands. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 30(4), 487-499.
Quebbeman, A. J., & Rozell, E. J. (2002). Emotional intelligence and
dispositional affectivity as moderators of workplace aggression: The
impact on behavior choice. Human Resource Management Review,
12(1), 125-143.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 333 Volume XI Number 03
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination,
cognition and personality, 9(3), 185-211.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995).
Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional
intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale.
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and
customer perceptions of service quality: Tests of a causal model.
Journal of applied psychology, 83(2), 150.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T.,
Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a
measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and individual
differences, 25(2), 167-177.
Sert, A., Elci, M., Uslu, T., & Şener, İ. (2014). The effects of organizational
justice and ethical climate on perceived work related stress. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 1187-1198.
Shan, S., Ishaq, H. M., & Shaheen, M. A. (2015). Impact of organizational
justice on job performance in libraries: mediating role of leader-
member exchange relationship. Library Management, 36(1/2), 70-85.
Shapiro, S. A. (1994). Keeping the Baby and Throwing out the Bathwater:
Justice Breyer's Critique of Regulation Symposium: Justice Breyer's
Contribution to Administrative Law.
Sony, M., & Mekoth, N. (2016). The relationship between emotional
intelligence, frontline employee adaptability, job satisfaction and job
performance. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 20-32.
Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (1986). What is intelligence?:
Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition: Praeger Pub
Text.
Terman, L. M. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium--II.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(3), 127.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological
analysis: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Uma, S., & Roger, B. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building
approach. book.
Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I. (2004). The role of emotional
intelligence and personality variables on attitudes toward organisational
change. Journal of managerial psychology, 19(2), 88-110.
Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: the influence of uncertainty
salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 80(6), 931.
Van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., Brebels, L., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2015).
Willing and able: Action-state orientation and the relation between
procedural justice and employee cooperation. Journal of Management,
41(7), 1982-2003.
Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Hartnell, C. A. (2009). Organizational
justice, voluntary learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 334 Volume XI Number 03
mediating effects of identification and leader‐member exchange.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1103-1126.
Wang, H.-j., Lu, C.-q., & Siu, O.-l. (2015). Job insecurity and job performance:
The moderating role of organizational justice and the mediating role of
work engagement. Journal of applied psychology, 100(4), 1249.
Wechsler, D. (1940). THE MEASUREMENT OF ADULT INTELLIGENCE.
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 91(4), 548.
Wechsler, D. (1997). WAIS-III: Wechsler adult intelligence scale: Psychological
Corporation.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role
behaviors. Journal of management, 17(3), 601-617.
Williams, W. M., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Group intelligence: why some
groups are better than others. Intelligence, 12(4), 351-377.
Yaghoubi, M., Saghaian Nejad, S., Abolghasem Gorji, H., Norozi, M., &
Rezaie, F. (2009). Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and
Organizational Commitment in the Hospital Staffs Medical University
of Isfahan (MUI). Journal of Health Administration, 12(35), 25-32.
Yılmaz, K., & Taşdan, M. (2009). Organizational citizenship and organizational
justice in Turkish primary schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 47(1), 108-126.