Over the last 25 years organizational justice has been the most popular area of research in organizational behavior (Cropanxano & GreenBerg, 1997; 1990, 1996). Justice perceptions have been shown to have effects on people behavior and outcomes at workplace. Organizational justice is concerned with people's fairness perceptions with respect to their employment relationships and it has been found that individuals appraise both what they receive and haw they receive it (Lind & Tyler, 1988).
Although numerous studies have been conducted in the west context on Organizational Justice, Motivation and Performance of employees as separate concepts. There are only a few attempts being made to examine the influence of employee perception of justice on motivation and performance (Abubakr Mohyeldin Tahir Suliman, 2006). Thus, the aim of the current study is to investigate the relationship between employee perception of organizational justice, motivation and performance.
Variables:
In our study we considered three variables that are Organizational Justice, Motivation and Performance. Here Perceived Justice is Independent variable and Motivation and performance are dependent variables.
The term justice is used in this study to mean the degree to which employee perceive the overall organization rules procedures and policies, distribution of rewards that are relevant to their work to be fair. Whereas job performance is the degree to which employee are carrying out their job in a given work setting.
An organizational outcome such as employee motivation and job performance is related to procedural justice and interactional justice rather than distributive justice. Here we mean that if employee perceives procedural fairness they would be motivated toward their job and they would perform their tasks more actively and show more concern toward job performance. The results related to the fairness of procedures indicate that employees' perceptions of the methods and procedures used in the organization have a direct link to their motivational and performance level. This indicates that the more positive the perception; the more motivated the employee would be.
Theoretical review:
Organizational justice
Organizational justice represents a line of research in which the applicability of social justice theory is examined in the area of organizational behavior. Stacy Adams in 1960s can be considered the pioneer of research on justice in organizational and managerial settings. The concept of organizational justice has been driven from different angles by different writers. Most researchers agree that it is "a dominating theme in organizational life" (Cremer, 2005). Generally speaking, employees' perceptions of fairness in all organizational processes and practices are assumed to influence their behavior and work outcomes. The majority of researchers tends to agree on the multifaceted nature of this construct, and incline to cite three main factors. These are:
Organizational Justice
Distributive justice
Procedural Justice
Interactional Justice
In Brief:
The primary focus of justice research before 1975 was on Distributive Justice which refers to how fair, people perceive their rewards to be. Most of this work was based on Adams, Equity theory, (1965) in which it was suggested that people determine whether their rewards are fair by making social comparisons; they do so by comparing their own input output ratio with the ratio of others (Herbiniak & Alutto 1972). In 1975 Thibaut & walker introduce the concept of procedural justice to explain people fairness concern in courtroom and Leventhal (1977) translated this concept into organizational settings
Procedural justice refer to how fair people perceive their procedures that are used as to arrive at outcome decisions for example: whether voice is given when making a decision whether accurate procedures are used (Lind and Taylor 1988). The final category Interact ional Justice was introduced by (bies and moag 1986) this type of justice reflect the nature of relationships between the employee and his supervisor.
The employee perception of fairness in the organization procedures and process is assumed to influence his/her relationships with the organization, co-workers and managers, which in turn affect his behavior and work outcomes.
This interactional justice has three sub factors which are:
Fairness in manager employee relationship
Supervisor subordinates coordination and communication
Trust.
Distributive Justice:
This factor is concerned with employees' satisfaction with their work outcomes. In his Theory of Justice, Rawls (1999) claims that one's place of birth, social status, and family influences are matters of luck that should not unduly influence the amount of benefits we receive in life. He maintains that the job of distributive justice is to limit the influence of luck so that goods might be distributed more fairly and to everyone's advantage.
There is a general agreement among researchers that;
Distributive Justice "leads to organizational effectiveness"
(Tang and Sarsfield-Baldwin, 1996).
Employees' perceptions of distributive justice are based largely on comparisons with others that are expected in the workplace. For example, co-workers may compare their salaries, working hours and benefits. If the comparison result is positive, they are likely to feel positive toward the system. However, if the result is negative - employees have a sense that they are at an unfair disadvantage relative to others - they may wish to challenge the system that has given rise to this state of affairs. Systems in which resources are distributed unfairly can become quite flat to disputes, mistrust, disrespect and other social problems.
Procedural Justice
This component is related to the fairness of the processes by which decisions are made. People feel affirmed if the procedures that are adopted treat them with respect and dignity, making it easier to accept even outcomes they do not like. It is viewed as one of the most important factors in today's workplace (Tang and Sarsfield-Baldwin, 1996; Mossholder, 1998). According to Lin and Tyler (1988):
Organizations that ignore procedural justice concerns run the risk of engendering negative organizational attitudes, dissatisfaction with organizational outcomes of decisions, non compliance with rules and procedures, and, in some instances, lower performance.
Perceptions of procedural justice have consistently been shown to affect a variety of outcome variables. McDowall and Fletcher (2004) postulated: "characteristics of any review and development system are related to both an overall supportive feedback and communication structure and to changes in attitudinal measures". Tyler and Belliveau (1995) argued that fair procedures tend to inspire feelings of loyalty to one's team or group, legitimize the authority of leaders, and help to ensure voluntary compliance with the rules. In general, procedural justice in organizational decision-making has been shown to have a positive impact on a variety of employees' decisions and some emotional and behavioral reactions. These consequences of procedural justice include variables such as organizational commitment, trust, satisfaction, compliance with decision and performance.
Interactional Justice
This factor of organizational justice refers to the nature of the relationship between the employee and his/her supervisor. More specifically, it deals with three sub-factors.
First, fairness is one of the most important factors of work environment that influence manager-employee relationships, employee-employee relationships and the organization employee relationship. The employee's perception of fairness in the organizations' procedures and processes is assumed to influence his/her relationships with the organization, co-workers and managers, which in turn affect his/her behavior and work outcomes. Cottringer (1999), for example, argued that creating and managing fairness is important for work organization, because it has an impact on employees' attitudes and performance. He concluded:
The first rule of good management is fundamental fairness. This is the management gold rule: Treat employees the way you want to be treated. This requires an attitude of openness and a keen sensitivity to know when you are approaching the point of no return in crossing over the line. Fundamental fairness means achieving a workable balance between opposing behaviours, such as: 1) giving vs. taking, 2) autocracy vs. democracy, 3) autonomy vs. supervision, 4) change vs. stability, 5) aloofness vs. approachability, 6) idealism vs. realism, 7) talking vs. listening, 8) simplicity vs. complexity, 9) organisation vs. individual, and 10) thinking vs. acting.
The second sub-component is superior-subordinate communication. Developing an effective communication system which facilitates the daily interactions between the employees and their supervisors is essential for work organizations. More specifically, the employee-immediate supervisor communication is assumed to have an impact on the employee's loyalty and performance (Tang and Sarsfield-Baldwin, 1996). Therefore, two-way communication is an important factor in today's workplace. Arguing that "creating a work environment that is open, honest and responsive to all employees is critical to establishing employee ownership", Kane (1996) suggested that having an effective two-way communication system within the organization fosters greater loyalty and performance. Likewise, Sanchez (1999) argued that two-way communication is an important factor in today's business environment. He suggested some strategies for creating successful employee communication in the information age. He concluded:
In today's business environment, communicators face the complex challenges of developing strategies and processes to manage the communication function in ways that enhance the organization's success. Broad-based communication must win the attention and co-operation of employees. To meet these challenges, communicators and senior management must work to establish proactive, well-defined communication strategies that engage and align employees with the organization's business goals.
The last sub-factor is trust. This is an important element of work life that is increasingly assumed to play an important role in determining employees' actions and interactions. For example, Cole and Cole (1999) suggested that the volatile corporate world of downsizing, mergers and organizational restructuring have shattered employee security and confidence. Therefore, gaining employee's trust is essential. They asserted:
Perhaps no other component affects the working relationships as much as trust. It is frequently referred to as the lubricant that makes relationships work. In its absence, paranoia often runs rampant. Lack of trust tears at the very fibers of creativity, feeling valued as an employee and the loyalty to produce at the 110 per cent level.
Nonetheless, job satisfaction is one of the most important attitudes that influence employees' behavior and work outcomes. For years, researchers have puzzled over how satisfaction is affecting and/or affected by other organizational variables. For example, individual differences, characteristics of the job, the fit between these two, mood and emotions were found to be the major determinants of job satisfaction. According to Schermerhorn. (2001):
On a daily basis managers must be able to infer the job satisfaction of others by careful observation of and interpretation of what they say and do while going about their jobs. Sometimes, it is also useful to examine more formally the levels of job satisfaction among group of workers.
Most researchers (e.g. Smith et al.., 1969; Goris et al., 2000; Schermerhorn et al., 2001) conceptualized satisfaction as a multifaceted construct comprising five facets:
the work itself, quality of supervision, relationships with coworkers, promotion opportunities and pay. On the other side, few studies have examined satisfaction as a moderating construct rather than an independent or dependent variable. The current study assumes that perception of justice influences job satisfaction; which in turn affects work performance, i.e. mediate the link between justice and performance.
Nonetheless, recruiting and maintaining good performing employees is one of the major challenges that faces work organizations in today's diverse and continuously changing work place. Performance is widely accepted as a multifaceted construct rather than a uni-dimensional variable (e.g. Angle and Lawson, 1994; Kalleberg and Marsden, 1995; Somers and Birnbaum, 1998). However, there is no agreement among researchers with regard to the number and nature of these components. The current study examines five facets of work performance, namely, work enthusiasm, readiness to innovate, job perform (quality and quantity of work), understanding work duties and work skills.
Literature Review:
The term "organizational justice" was originally coined by Greenberg in the 1980s (Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997) which basically is taken as perceptions of fairness in all organizational processes and practices. Perceptions of fairness also communicate that organizations are committed to their employees (Meyer 1997). Research on perceived organizational support (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa 1986; Eisenberger, Fasolo & Davis-LaMastro 1990; Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch & Rhoades 2001) demonstrates that an organization's commitment to employees is important for maintaining higher levels of motivation. And on the basis of this comment we can say that the employees when perceive that their organization is commited to them then they also perceive justice in positive way than that perception leads towards higher motivation of employees and than towards better performance.
Organizational Justice has generally been postulated to encompass three different components (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998; Bowen et al., 1999):
(1) Distributive justice: This is largely based on equity theory (Adams, 1965) and refers to the perceived fairness of outcomes that an individual receives (Cropanzano and Folger, 1991). Organizational reward allocation processes are one of the main tools for maintaining and increasing work motivation (Erez & Earley 1993). Organizations have great discretion about the specific aspects they can consider and reward when making decisions about highly valued resources such as pay raises or promotions, or making negative decisions such as those about dismissals.
(2) Procedural justice: The second dimension focuses more on the procedures and how procedures are enacted. This aspect is called procedural justice. The perceived fairness of procedures which are used to determine outcome decisions (Folger and Konovsky, 1989). It has been shown to relate to identity concerns of individuals (Tyler & Blader 2003) because it communicates to employees whether they are full-fledged and respected members of a group (Tyler & Lind 1992).
(3) Interactional justice: the term was conceived by Bies and Moag (1986) and relates to the perceived fairness of the interpersonal communication relating to organizational procedures.
Previous Research on Organizational Justice, Motivation and Performance
Lee (2000) explored the relationship between organizational justice, performance and motivation. The result indicates that distributive justice and procedural justice has direct positive influence on motivation and job performance. He concluded that distributive justice is important as that of procedural justice and the impact of working interpersonal relations on employee justice perception is significant. That is quality of interpersonal working relationships promote employee perception of fairness.
Robinson (2004) investigated the role of organizational justice in predicting four organizational outcome variables namely job satisfaction, organizational commitment, motivation and performance. These four components of organizational justice were considered as significant predictors of the four organizational outcome variables. Distributive justice is the cause of the most variance in job satisfaction while procedural justice has accounted for the variance in motivation and performance.
Distributive justice is relatively strongly associated with outcome evaluations (e.g., pay satisfaction), while procedural justice is associated with system evaluations, which are, for instance, reflected in performance of the employees in the organization (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993). Finally, interactional justice is relatively strongly associated with authority evaluations (Bies, 2001). For instance, it affects trust in authorities, and also leader-member exchange (LMX) perceptions (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). This latter finding is especially interesting with respect to the present study because LMX perceptions (with high exchange members) refer to informations haring between the leader and followers, personal support and approval, and delegation of responsibility (Yukl, 2002).
Various studies have shown that reward allocation procedures and HRM practices are evaluated in terms of justice (Gilliland 1993; Jones, Scarpello & Bergmann 1999; Ryan & Ployhart 2000). However, it is unclear whether rewarding loyalty would be more strongly related to distributive or procedural justice. First, considering loyalty is a criterion that is used to determine an outcome (e.g. pay raise, promotion). Therefore, it should be related to perceptions of distributive justice. However, rewarding loyalty also has a strong symbolic message. It indicates that an organization is concerned with the well-being of employees who are loyal and committed. Therefore, rewarding loyalty might also be related to procedural justice. The study will, therefore, examine how employees perceive allocations where organizations considered loyalty in the decision process.
Studies have explored the links between justice, motivation and performance from different angles. Fisher and Smith (2004) study performance seniority and allocation base criteria in his study he argued that allocation based on work performance and seniority were perceived to be fair. Work performance accounted for about 11% variance due to justice perceptions.
In organizational justice approach Ronald Fisher (2003) conducted research in which he tried to describe the impact of rewarding loyalty on work attitudes and loyalty is evaluated and looked at in terms of justice, which further is connected to the concept of Motivation, Job performance & Job satisfaction. He proved that perceived distributive justice relate to greater job satisfaction whereas perceived procedural justice relates to higher motivation and greater job performance.
The research has found out that considering loyalty during reward allocation shows the distributive justice and individuals then believe that organization rewards those who are loyal is a fair deal. And the fact that organizations value loyalty is shown by the link between procedural justice and organizational procedures so both are important and in turn justice is linked with the job attitudes.
The distributive justice relates to reward allocation and if the employees feel it is based on justice and if the outcomes of allocations are positive then this leads to satisfaction and better performance (Conlon, Wesson & Porter, 2001).
On the other hand procedural justice tells employees that they are valued by their organization and this would influence their motivational level positively and it would result in better performance. Thus procedural justice act like rein forcer for motivation and work performance (Lind & Taylor, 2001). So we can say that if the reward allocation and the criteria for it are perceived as just by the employees than it just enhances and reinforces the aspects of job satisfaction motivation and increased work performance and obviously we can relate that to our research variables.
Holly A. Schorth & Priti Pradhan Shah, 2000, attempted to conduct a study in which they examined effects of procedural justice on self esteem. In this research Group value model and the attribution theory are used to state the effect of procedural justice on the self esteem.
According to procedural justice research, when procedures are fair people should judge the outcomes as more fair and they should be more satisfied with the outcome than when the procedures are unfair (Lind & Tyler) In addition fair procedures should lead to more satisfaction toward those who have made that decision. Studies examining the emotional reaction toward procedural injustice find that procedural injustice lead to evaluation anxiety lower achievement motivation anger, greater devaluation and stronger intention to protest (Nacoste & lehman, 1987). This study was carried in three parts to see effects of procedural justice on person's self esteem. Previous research examining the effect of procedural justice on self-esteem has focused on positive relation between fair procedures and self esteem. So they proved fair unbiased procedures lead to higher self esteem in individuals than unfair procedures irrespective of outcomes.
Here in this research the linkage for the procedural justice has been developed with the positive or negative outcomes but for our research we derived the support that in positive outcome conditions fair procedures leads to higher self esteem than the unfair procedures, and if we say that this higher self esteem triggers an individual towards job performance than that is not wrong
Link between motivation and performance
Richard M. Steers: Richard T. Mowda: Debra L. Shapiro suggests that employee motivation plays a central role in the field of management-both practically and theoretically. Managers see motivation as an integral part of the performance equation at all levels, while organizational researchers see it as a fundamental building block in the development of useful theories of effective management practice.
Study supports our dependent variable in our area of research as it suggests that motivation is the driver for an action and behavior. Managers see motivation as integral part of the work performance at all levels with in the organization.
Russell Corpanzano from Colorado state university have also carried out research in the same area the motivation behind this search is that no one before has done research in this area psychologist have only measured effect of justice on attitudes toward job:(Daly & Geyer 1995,Floger ) and behavior at work place (cropanzo & Prehar).
If individuals perceive a decision as being fair, they are more likely to reciprocate with higher performance, greater job satisfaction and then engage in extra-role behavior. (Colquitt, Conlon,Wesson, Porter & Ng 2001).
Procedural and distributive justice predict a verity of important work out comes, a closer examination of the literature suggest that most of these criteria can be categorized in two broad families :attitudes(e.g., commitment satisfaction, trust)and behaviors(performance, OCB, theft) Russell Cropenzo
Howard M .Weiss Kathleen Suckow attempted to measure the effect of justice conditions on discrete emotions. In this research they chose four discrete emotions that are anger and guilt, happiness and pride. They studied effects of justice conditions on these four emotions and as findings, they proved that people were happy when they received positive outcome irrespective of fairness of procedures through which that out come has occurred. Research findings suggested that pride is greatly determined by outcomes rather than procedural fairness. So the hypothesis related to pride was not proven in this research. Their findings also supported that anger is higher in situation where outcome is negative and procedure is biased in favor of other person and on the other hand guilt was proved to be high in situation where outcome is positive to the person and procedure is biased in his favors.
This research supports our study in a manner that when person is in anger state due to negative outcomes caused by unfair and biased procedures he would be less motivated toward job performance and he would be motivated in the reverse situation
Stephen w. Gilliland carried out a research in which procedural and distributive justices were examined in an employee selection situation. In measuring procedural justice job relatedness and explanation to selection decision was taken for study and for examining distributive justice operation of selection decision and prior selection expectancy was done, the basic two main issues were examined in this study
The relationship between procedural and distributive justice in reaction to personnel selection
The link of organizational justice on pre and post employment outcomes
Their findings suggest that if an individual is treated unfairly in selection process may act on this felt injustice by decreasing his performance. And also that if an organization manages to increase the perceived fairness of selection system organization may increases productivity. If employees perceive fairness in procedures and out comes in selection system they would be more motivated toward job performance. And productivity increases on individual and collective basis.
Amanuel G. Tekleab, Riki Takeuchi,M. Susan Taylor researched on the chain of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange relationships, and employee reactions by investigating the proposed mediating role of psychological contract (individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and their organization) violations. Proved that if in any organization violate the psychological contracts established with the employees than employees perceive that the organization is not being just in its procedures and ultimately this impact the social exchange between individuals and the organization in negative way and it would result in lower motivational level and poor performance.
Jean M. Phillips Elizabeth A. Douthitt Marry Anne M Hyland examined the leader consideration behaviors and justice perceptions on the staff member's satisfaction with the leader. One factor that might be central to the staff member's reactions is there perception of justice with regard to the team and its processes and fairness of leader's behavior.
The results of this study showed that the leader considerations uniquely predicted justice perception. Performance shapes justice perceptions independently of leader consideration and decision influence. Leaders treating members of the team acknowledging there input and listening to the staff members has important influence on staff member's perceptions of fairness. Therefore consideration behaviors can be used as leadership tool in promoting feelings of trust within the team. This will enhance team effectiveness. Having greater influence in a decision is related to greater motivation and satisfaction. Members of higher performing teams may in general be more satisfied with there leader and that they may perceive their leader to be more just which will increase future satisfaction and motivation.
Kees Van Den BOS, Riel Vermunt and HENK A.M Wilke E.Allan Lind, 1992,
As per their study in social psychology it is discovered that perceived procedural justice positively effects how people react to there outcome. In many situations people may find it difficult to assess whether their out come is fair or unfair and satisfying and unsatisfying because they only have information of their own outcomes and they do not know the out comes of the others. In these situations people use fairness of the procedures and processes as a heuristic substitute to assess how to judge their own outcomes. But when they are informed of their outcomes they rely less on the procedural information.
Greenberg has pointed to the importance of the understanding of employee experience and how they react towards it. He assumed that organizational justice has the potential to explain many organizational behaviors and outcomes.
Suliman (2000) examined the relationship between the employee-immediate supervisor's relationship (a factor of interactional justice) and self rated performance in Jordanian industries. The research reported that the employees who positively perceived their relationships with immediate supervisors tended to rate work performance more positively than those who showed less satisfaction with their supervisors.
As firms struggle to use their human resources more effectively in gaining competitive advantage, it is not surprising that the employee-organization relationship has frequently emerged as a topic of interest for both organizational researchers and executives (Cappelli, 1999; Erlich, 1994; Rousseau,1995; Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Hite, 1995). Empirical research (Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002;Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Rupp& Cropanzano, 2002) has provided considerable evidence that the level of organizational justice present in management decisions about employees is directly related to the quality of resulting social exchange relationships between the individuals and their employing organizations as well as between employees and organizational agents such as immediate managers.
Social exchange relationship repeatedly has proven to be a significant predictor of a number of important employee attitudes and behaviors, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, intentions to leave, and others. A small but consistent body of research has also established varying relationships between particular types of organizational justice and seemingly corresponding social exchange relationships. For example, procedural justice, which is the fairness of the formal procedures underlying organizations' decisions about their employees (Thibaut &Walker, 1975), tends to predict perceived organizational support (POS), a social exchange relationship between employee and organization (Mastersonet al., 2000; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick,2002).
On the other hand, interactional justice, which is the fairness of the interpersonal treatment displayed during the enactment of the procedures underlying organizational decisions (Bies & Moag,1986), tends to predict leader-member exchange(LMX), a social exchange relationship between an employee and his or her immediate manager (Cropazanoet al., 2002; Masterson et al., 2000). In a recent review of the causes of justice effects, Cropanzano,Rupp, Mohler, and Schminke summarized a frequently cited explanation for these effects: From a justice perspective, fair treatment (among other causes) is posited to create closer, open-ended social exchange relationships. These types of relationships produce obligations for the employee to repay the supervisor or the organization. Hence performance, OCB, and so on are likely to result (Cropanzanoet al., 2001).Thus, findings from a number of different studies now support the existence of a chain of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange relationships, and employee attitudinal and behavioral reactions.
David De Cremer,Marius van Dijke&Arjan E.R. Bos studied aimed to examine the effect of leader's use of procedural justice on employees sense of organizational identification (OID has been defined as "perceived oneness with an Organization and the experience of the organization's success or failures as one's own") affect-based trust and cognition-based trust.
It was found that leaders ensuring procedural justice positively affect OID and both types of trust. Further, only affect-based trust (and not cognition-based trust) mediated the relationship between procedural justice and OID. The present research presents a perspective of looking at procedural justice as tool that leaders can use in organizations to promote employees sense of OID.
Propositions:
After the whole study of different researches we have developed the following proposition, that;
Employee perception of justice influence their motivation & performance.
And to prove this very point we have developed the following sub-propositions on basis of some solid points, these propositions are:
Research on organizational justice has shown that fair policies and decisions (both on distributive and more process related justice dimensions; (cropanzano & Ambrose 2001; De Cremer, 2002) make people feel that they are valued and accepted members within the organization (De cremer & tyler, 2005; tyler & lind 1992).
So, we propose that when employees feel valued they will be motivated and it has positive influences on their job performance.
Field experiment's result of researches indicated when employee perceive that there is procedural justice in organization they will be more motivated and it would influence their job performance regardless of the hardships they have to face. (John Schaubroeck, Douglas R. May and William Brown, 1994)
So we propose that, If employee perceives procedural justice in the organization that will result into higher level of motivation and will perform better irrespective of economical hardships.
As leaders consideration is positively related to perceived justice as proposed by (jean M. Phillips,elizbeth A douthitt,marry Anne M thyland 2001).
So, we propose that if there is leadership consideration in an organization employees would perceive justice and they will be motivated and show better performance.
An organization's commitment to employees is important for maintaining higher levels of motivation. (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa 1986; Eisenberger, Fasolo & Davis-LaMastro 1990; Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch & Rhoades 2001
And on the basis of this comment we can propose that the employees when perceive that their organization is commited to them then they also perceive justice in positive way than that perception leads towards higher motivation of employees and ultimately towards better performance.
As per Ronald Fisher considering loyalty during reward allocation shows the distributive justice and individuals then believe that organization rewards those who are loyal is a fair deal. And the fact that organizations value loyalty is shown by the link between procedural justice and organizational procedures so both are important and in turn justice is linked with the job attitudes.
So we can propose that, If loyalty is considered by the organization while reward distribution, the employee perceives justice to be existent in organization and then will be motivated and perform better.
Howard M .Weiss Kathleen Suckow attempted to measure the effect of justice conditions on discrete emotions.
So we can propose, discrete emotions play an important role in determining the motivation level of employees in an organization.
Amanuel G. Tekleab, Riki Takeuchi,M. Susan Taylor Proved that if in any organization violate the psychological contracts established with the employees than employees perceive that the organization is not being just in its procedures and ultimately this impact the social exchange between individuals and the organization in negative way and it would result in lower motivational level and poor performance.
So we can propose that, the employee perceptions regarding fairness in organizations get negative if the organization violate any of the psychological contracts already been made with them,
Social exchange relationship repeatedly has proven to be a significant predictor of a number of important employee attitudes and behaviors, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, intentions to leave, and others.
We here propose that, the employees who positively perceived their relationships with immediate supervisors tended to perform more positively than those who showed less satisfaction with their supervisors.
In positive outcome conditions fair procedures leads to higher self esteem than the unfair procedures (Priti Paradhan Shah 2000)
We may propose that, higher self esteem leads to higher motivation that triggers an individual towards job performance.
Discussion:
After analyzing the literature review we have arrived at the following findings regarding the relationship between Organizational justice, motivation and performance.
Justice is a key issue in understanding social behavior. According to equity theory people judge an out come as fair when the ratio of their own input and output equals the ratios of inputs and output of others. The findings also showed that organizational justice and its factors played important role in determining the organizational out comes for example more positive the perception of justice, the higher the performance.
Distributive, Procedural and Interactional Justice are positively and significantly related to motivation and this in turns leads to increased level of performance. An organizational outcome such as employee motivation and job performance is related to procedural justice and interactional justice rather than distributive justice. While job satisfaction is more related to distributive justice .Here we mean that if employee perceive procedural fairness they would be motivated toward their job and they would perform their task more actively and show more concern toward job performance.
Organizational justice and its factors played significant role in predicting work performance. This indicates that the more positive the perception of justice, the higher the performance. Where we can say that the manager rated performance is an objective measure of performance and it appears to be significantly and highly predicted by justice, compared to self-rated which is a subjective measure of performance.
Managers need to continuously ask and answer that either the outcome of a decision is fair or not? Especially if the organization is undergoing changes, downsizing and/or restructuring. Moreover, making sure that all procedures used to set goals, tasks or to investigate a problem fair is also essential, as well as monitoring the behavior of superiors and how they carry out policies and procedures and treat those who are subject to their authority, decisions, and actions. Managers need to examine organizational justice from employees' point of view and not to rely only on their own assessment and observations. This can be done through meetings, surveys, management by wandering around, suggestion/complain box and/or adopting an open-door policy (Kappelman and Prybutok, 1995; Shenhar, 1993). This is likely to help in bridging the perception gap between superiors and subordinates. Furthermore, keeping employees motivated toward their jobs over years is not an easy job, but it is critical for organizational success.
Managers need to understand that the perception of the employee for his/her job, pay, supervisory style, co-workers' relations and promotion chances is likely to affect their work outcomes. The outcome of these perceptions (thoughts, feelings and/or actions) is affected by factors outside the employee's control, but they are under the organizational control. Superiors must talk to their subordinate to find out how they evaluate and perceive their jobs and what managers can do to improve employees' satisfaction.
As far as the interactional justice is concerned, the results we find that the overall quality of employee-organization interactions, as perceived by employees, play significant role in determining their job performance. This indicates that managers need to continuously assess and develop the ways in which they manage their relationships with employees. This may include the way they act and interact with subordinates, the level of respect and trust, handling disputes, conflict and/or misunderstandings.
In the organizational setting if the employees are treated equally then they surely perceive that their relationship, bond and loyalty with the organization is being rewarded and valued by the organization and in this sense they perceive that organization is just with them and treat every body in same way and there is sense of equity for every body so obviously they'll get more close to their organization and will be more motivated towards achieving their work outcomes and thus their performance will be enhance.
Conclusion:
Interestingly, research on organizational justice has shown that fair policies and decisions (both on distributive and more process-related justice dimensions; see Cropanzano & Ambrose, 2001; De Cremer, 2002) make people feel that they are valued and accepted members within the collective and organization setting (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005; Tyler & Lind, 1992). In addition, such fair practices also make employees feel more efficient and increase their overall sense of self-worth (Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997). And ultimately they will be more motivated and give better performance.
As a final note we have concluded that we observed a linear model in the three under discussion variables, which are Organizational Justice, Motivation and Performance. That if the employees perceive justice in the organization than they just get motivated towards the works they are assigned with, and ultimately they will perform better because of that increased motivation level. On the other hand the Distributive justice effects the satisfaction and commitment whereas the procedural justice impact motivation and performance more than the other.
But if the employee perceives injustice in the organization than for that the level of motivation decreases and the performance of the employee decreases and problems in the management of human resources will occur.
Motivation
and
Performance
Interactional
Organizational Justice
Procedural
Future directions:
The results of this study suggest further investigations in this field in different parts of the region in order to reach more general conclusions about the nature, significance and levels of justice-work outcomes links. This will also help in making cross-cultural comparisons, especially because perception of justice is likely to be affected by culture. In addition, researchers may investigate the reasons behind the partial mediation of satisfaction in justice- performance link. And to find out if there is any other organizational variable(s) that is likely to play a full relationship role.
