Sample Paper (Justice and Engagment)

ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 1
Introduction
Employee engagement is increasingly drawing a lot of interest among
practitioners and consultants. It has become one of the most popular topics of discussion
in the organizational development space forming a fundamental constituent for
employee surveys carried out by consulting firms (Bailey, Madden, Alfes, Fletcher,
2017). Although a relatively new notion in general and in scholarly work in particular,
the past decade has seen a surge in academic research in the concept of engagement
which has been lauded as the key to an organization’s success (Saks & Gruman, 2014).
In most developing countries such as the Philippines, the public service plays a
significant role in driving economic growth (Akaranga, 2015). The question of how
public managers can motivate employees to deliver high quality public services in the
face of organizational, societal, and political change is a core question of public
management research (Kuipers, Garety, Fowler, Freeman, Bebbington, & Dunn, 2014).
The concept of employee engagement represents a positive psychological experience
that may provide insights into the functioning and maintenance of public service and its
link with performance and morale within the public sector (Bakker, 2015).
In one of the first empirical tests of the antecedents and consequences of employee
engagement, (Saks & Gruman, 2014) found that employee engagement predicts job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, lower intention to quit and organizational
citizenship behavior. Engagement is important to job performance. Employees who are
high in engagement contribute to their organizations with higher levels of task
performance and organizational citizenship behavior which results in competitive
advantages for organizations (Rich, Lepine & Crawford, 2015). Employee engagement
is, therefore, a critical factor for organizational success as it results in better outcomes
and higher levels of job performance (Gruman & Saks, 2014; Alvi & Abbasi, 2016).
Academic research in employee engagement is only about a decade old, yet many
studies have been published on the topic, an indicator that it is emerging as a topic of
increasing interest (Saks & Gruman, 2014). Bailey et al. (2017) conducted a systematic
synthesis of narrative evidence involving 214 high quality studies published in peer-
reviewed journals to bring coherence to the diffuse body of literature on engagement.
The significance of fairness as an essential subject in organizations has received
widespread recognition (Green, 2014). He further viewed organizational justice as an
area of research with the potential to give insights into many organizational behaviour
outcome variables. Organizational justice arose in an effort to describe the role of
fairness as it directly relates to the workplace and the ways in which employees
determine whether or not they have been treated fairly and how their views on fairness
influences other work-related variables (Moorman, 2016; Lemons & Jones, 2017). Work
on Adams equity theory as cited by Folger and Konovsky (2015) has shown that
employee job performance may increase or decrease in relation to perceptions of
inequitable outcomes. This means that while employees contribute their time and effort
to the organization, employers compensate them through appropriate rewards and
recognition. In this context, employees’ opinion about equity or inequity is based on
their social comparison with a referent individual or group (Biswas, Varma, &
Ramaswami, 2018). It is, therefore, determined that employees who believe that their
organizations have treated them fairly are more likely to hold positive views of other
aspects related to the organization such as their work, work outcomes and their
supervisors (Moorman, 2016).
Findings of a study carried out in public service organization to explore the
relationship between organizational justice and the levels of employee engagement
established that there is a positive correlation between organizational justice dimensions
and work engagement dimensions of vigour, dedication and absorption. Both
organizational justice and employee engagement have been studied separately with other
organizational factors indicating that both variables are positively associated with work
performance, organizational commitment, organizational trust, retention, and employee
wellness (Ledimo & Hlongwane, 2014).
In the Philippines, very few academic studies have been carried out on the
construct of employee engagement. So far, the researcher has not come across any
published studies on employee engagement as it relates to organizational justice in the
country yet. The effect justice perceptions have on various organizational outcomes may
be partly attributed to employee engagement (Saks & Gruman, 2014). Hence, this study
will contribute to the limited literature on organizational justice and its effect on
employee engagement. Moreover, this study will further investigate if employees with
high perceptions of organizational justice may feel obliged to reciprocate by giving more
of themselves through greater levels of engagement.
Republic Act 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code (LGC),
which was passed by the Congress in 1991, embodies all existing laws and statutes
concerning local government and administration on matters such as powers, functions,

structure, personnel, taxation, budget, services, and facilities (Nolledo & Nolledo,
2015).
In the past years, public organizations were relatively easy to identify, being both
paid for by the government and provided by public employees, when economists regard
public goods exist where competition is not possible and where their provision is “non-
excludable.” However, recent reforms in public management practice and discipline
have transformed public organizations into an ideal institution. Its primary concerns as
well as public financing, attempting to provide a uniform provision of service through
centralized control, utilizing standardized employment practices, and legitimated
through democratic accountability (Green, 2014).
An organization, whether public or private, is a goal-directed social entity with
deliberate processes and systems. In other words, an organization is a collection of
people working together to accomplish something better than they could if working
separately (Griffin & Moorhead, 2016). In order to perform function presented in the
prior statements and to achieve set objectives, the LGU, being a public organization,
should create a functional body or strengthen the existing workforce. Hence,
engagement is important to harness organization members’ selves to their work roles, to
employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role
performances.
Nelson and Simmons (2015) view employee engagement as a situation when
employees feel positive emotions towards their work, find their work to be personally
meaningful, consider their workload to be manageable, and have hope about the future
of their work. Richman (2016) defines engagement as the emotional/intellectual

commitment of an employee to the organization. Researchers on burnout (Harter,
Schmidt & Hayes, 2017; May, Gilson & Harter, 2014) have visualized engagement as
the opposite or positive antithesis of burnout. According to Harter, Schmidt & Hayes
(2017), engagement is characterized by energy, involvement and efficacy, the direct
opposite of the three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism and inefficacy (Saks,
2014). More recent research has brought forth newer dimensions of engagement. For
example, Macey & Schneider (2017) have defined employee engagement as a synthesis
of aspects of the self (i.e. trait, state and behavior) with situational aspects (i.e.
organizational conditions). Albrecht (2016) has coined employee engagement as “a
positive work-related psychological state characterized by a genuine willingness to
contribute to organizational success”.
Saks (2014) observes that employee engagement has been defined in different
ways and these definitions and measures often sound like other better known and
established constructs like organization commitment and organization citizenship
behaviour (Robinson, Perryman & Hayday, 2016). Extant literature also talks aplenty
of similar yet different constructs like work engagement and organization engagement.
Saks (2014) research, for instance, suggests that engagement of employees with their
organization and their work are distinct constructs, with different sets of antecedents
and consequences. This could be because the underlying psychological conditions
leading to each construct may be different. With the premise that the two most
dominant roles for most organizational members are their work role and their role as a
member of an organization, the researcher have built her proposition that employee
engagement can be considered in two different constructs: work and organizational
engagement.
Fair outcomes have been important for employees in organizations for many
decades. Research on justice previously focused on fair outcomes as an aspect of
organizational fairness known as distributive justice. However, more recent studies
show that procedural justice judgments play the major role in shaping people’s
perceptions compared to distributive justice judgments. This has led to a stronger focus
among justice researchers and practitioners on issues of procedural justice (Folger &
Konovsky, 2015; Tyler & Blader, 2017).
Procedural justice is one of the main dimensions of the justice construct and it
connotes the perceived fairness of the procedures and processes used to make decisions
on the allocation of resources (Loi, Lam, & Chan, 2018). Procedural justice is an
important construct in organizations (Cropanzano, 2016) and has a positive impact on
employee engagement which is an important aspect for many sectors especially where
job burnout and turnover intention is more likely to happen (He, Zhu, & Zheng, 2016).
A study carried out in India involving employees in public sector organizations
established that procedural justice is associated with job satisfaction, turnover
intentions and organizational commitment (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2016). Given
that organizational commitment and employee engagement constructs are related
though distinct from one another (Saks, 2014), it is logical to construe that procedural
justice will be associated with employee engagement. An interesting research finding
established that in the presence of fair procedures, individuals are more likely to accept
the responsibility for their problems than if the procedures are unfair. If the procedures
leading to the unwanted outcomes are considered unfair, however, individuals are more
likely to respond destructively (Cropanzano & Folger, 2017). Little academic research
exists on the link between organizational justice and employee engagement (He et al.,
2016) where the conduct of the study contributed.
In their observation of a courtroom setting Thibaut and Walker (as cited in
Cropanzano, 2016) established that the fairness process that leads to a verdict and the
verdict itself are independent. These processes or procedures may lead employees to
focus more on the steps taken to arrive at certain outcomes than the outcomes
themselves leading them to evaluate whether or not the procedures used are in
themselves fair (Cropanzano, 2016). Leventhal (2014) suggests that procedures are
deemed fair to the degree that the decision-making process demonstrates consistency,
bias-suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicality. Colquitt,
Noe, and Jackson (2016) agree with this view proposing that in order to ensure a
favorable justice climate within teams, leaders in organizations should provide
opportunities for members to appeal decisions. Further, a study on managers from three
organizations supported the notion that correctability can be used to create a fair
decision-making process (Green, 2014). The representativeness rule dictates that the
basic concerns and values of all subgroups of the population should be adequately
represented and the ethicality rule dictates that procedures must be compatible with the
fundamental moral and ethical values accepted by that individual (Leventhal, 2014).
Voice, or the voice effect is a central theme in the justice literature and refers to
the opportunity to present information relevant to a decision (Lind, Kanfer, & Earley,
2017; Brockner, Ackerman, Greenberg, Gelfand, Francesco, Chen, Leung, Bierbrauer,

Gomez, Kirkman, Shapiro, 2014). This process which is also known as the process
control effect presumes that persons given the opportunity to express their views will
believe that voice will help them control their outcomes leading them to have higher
procedural justice perceptions (Lind et al., 2017). This means that as long as there is
opportunity to express one’s views and opinions before a decision is made, procedural
fairness is enhanced. Voice can be regarded as the following four concepts: articulation
of an employee’s dissatisfaction in regards to a certain issue with management or
speaking out during a grievance handling procedure, collective organization expressed
through collective bargaining, contribution to management decision-making which is
aimed at making improvements for the organization, and lastly, as a form of mutuality
where employees and their organizations are involved in a partnership for long team
viability for both parties (Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington, & Ackers, 2014).
Employee voice refers to the actual behavior of speaking up with constructive ideas that
are aimed at bringing change (Rees, Alfes, & Gatenby, 2015). Research generally
supports the idea that employee voice behavior is associated with positive individual
and organizational outcomes further indicating that there exists a direct relationship
between employee voice and engagement whereby if employees perceive their work
environment to be one in which they can share their opinions, ideas and concerns, they
will in turn be more likely to demonstrate higher levels of engagement (Rees et al.,
2015).
The importance of voice is based on the extent to which the individuals in
question consider voice to be legitimate that is, sanctioned by cultural norms. Thus,
when the lack of voice violates cultural norms, people respond unfavorably (Brockner
et al., 2014). A study conducted across various organizations in the United States
involving 297 working adults who attended meetings regularly found that participation
in decision making processes in meetings which entails voicing of ideas, feelings and
opinions is related to increased employee engagement (Yoerger, Crowe, & Allen,
2015). In another study involving 79 undergraduate students in the USA, both pre-
decision voice and post decision voice led to higher fairness judgements than no voice
at all with pre-decision voice leading to higher fairness judgements than post decision
voice (Lind et al., 2017). In yet another study conducted on a sample of 319 working
adults, alumni of a large university in the southeast United States found that allowing
for employee voice in their meetings such as expressing concerns and disagreements
where possible results in employees who are poised to fully engage themselves in their
work in general (Allen & Rogelberg, 2018). Closer home in South Africa, it was found
that employee engagement was strongly related to participation in decision making
processes in the organization (Rothmann & Rothmann Jr, 2018).
Organizations can ensure procedural justice by ensuring the participation of their
employees in decision making processes which can increase employees’ perception of
procedural justice and can consequently increase employee engagement (Ghosh, Rai,
& Sinha, 2014). Participation in decision making is yet another application of the
representativeness rule whereby the individual has an opportunity to represent
themselves in a situation, therefore, creating a sense of fair perceptions (Yoerger et al.,
2015).
Procedures that meet the consistency criteria are applied in a similar manner
across persons, giving special advantage to no particular individual in various situations

that are relevant to an employee such as in job application procedures, reward
allocation procedures, among others (Leventhal, 2014). In addition, a procedure is
deemed fair when applied over the short term. Making changes too quickly or too often
reduces the appearance of procedural justice or fairness (Leventhal, 2014). The
consistency rule is based on people’s expectations and dictates that once a procedure is
in place, deviation from the laid down procedure will lead to lower perceptions of
procedural fairness (Van Den Bos, Vermut, & Wilke, 2016). Being an important
measure of the fairness of a procedure, consistency has been the subject of study by
various researches that have established that it is in fact the most important rule
criterion used in assessing the fairness of a procedure (Leventhal, 2014). Sheppard and
Lewicki (2014) explored business supervisors' allocation decisions and also discovered
that maintaining consistency was the key procedural justice concern. In addition,
Barrett-Howard and Tyler (2017) found that consistency across people was the most
important criterion for determining a fair procedure.
Consistency entails following a well-structured decision process with
predetermined criteria and rules which is contrasted with spontaneity and flexibility
without following particular criteria (Summereder, Streicher, & Batinic, 2014). A study
by Summereder et al. (2014) found that consistency is the procedural justice criterion of
particular relevance for managers to consider in times of globalization and increasing
cultural diversity regardless of whether the individuals are from a high or from a low
power distance culture.
Distributive justice is concerned with what persons obtain defined as “the fairness
of the outcomes received as a result of an allocation decision” (Cropanzano, 2016) and

focuses on the degree to which the suitable allocation norm, whether equality, equity or
need is followed in a given decision-making context (Cropanzano & Schminke, 2017).
The allocation norm forms the basis for distributive justice judgements with the
equality rule referring to situations where distributive justice judgements are made by
ensuring that all individuals receive the same allocations, the need rule referring to
instances where allocations are done based on the unique needs of the individuals
(Cropanzano & Schminke, 2017).
Distributive justice was the first form of justice to gain the attention of
organizational researchers before procedural and interactional justices captured the
interest of scholars as other critical dimension of the justice subject (Cropanzano,
2016). Although initially the differences between the justice dimensions had not been
explored, a study by Folger and Konovsky (2015) on the differential effects of
procedural and distributive justice in the workplace on a number of behavioral
outcomes established a clear distinction between distributive justice and procedural
justice. It is important to note certain crucial ideas in distributive justice research:
Firstly, that individual perceptions of justice rather than objective standards are used as
a measure; secondly, that the object of this judgement is one’s outcomes with respect to
a certain specific decision; thirdly, that judgements of distributive justice are ultimately
relative, meaning that the allocation is neither fair nor unfair by itself (Cropanzano &
Schminke, 2017). In order to achieve distributive justice, both rewards and punishments
should be perceived as being impartially allocated as any sense of unfairness in this
regard results in employees exerting less effort in their organizational participation
(Biswas et al., 2018).

Distributive justice is related to a range of employee work attitudes and
behaviors. In a meta-analytical review consisting of 120 separate meta-analyses of 183
empirical studies of organization justice, distributive justice was found to have high
correlations with outcomes of a decision making process such as pay, promotions and
performance evaluations, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, trust, agent-
referenced evaluation of authority and withdrawal (which encompasses absenteeism,
turnover and neglect) (Colquitt et al., 2015). Aryee, et al., (2016) found similar results
in their study of employees of a public sector organization in India whereby distributive
justice correlated with trust in organization, job satisfaction, turnover intentions,
organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors. Treating
employees with distributive justice seems to enhance commitment not only to the
organization but also to the group and increases the desire to remain which in turn
enhances the desire to perform well and engage in citizenship behaviors (Cropanzano &
Schminke, 2017).
Previous literature emphasized procedural justice as the conspicuous means of
explaining the employee–organization exchange but research findings suggest that in
addition to procedural justice, Indian managers and executives place strong emphasis
on distributive justice perceptions when evaluating support from their employers
(Biswas et al., 2018). This employee-organization exchange view of organizational
behavior has often been explored using the Social Exchange Theory (SET) which
provides a theoretical framework for organizational justice studies as it proposes
reciprocal interdependence of individuals. Organizational justice and employee
engagement are based on obligations created through perceptions of reciprocal

interdependence, making SET an appropriate theoretical framework for investigating
associations between them (Biswas et al., 2018). The first study aimed at testing the
relationship between fairness perceptions and employee engagement was carried by out
by Saks (2014) focusing on the antecedents and consequences of job and organizational
engagement in employees from various organizations in Canada. The findings indicated
that perceptions of distributive justice are positively related to job engagement and
organization engagement. These findings are in line with those of a study conducted by
Alvi and Abbasi (2016) in Pakistan that showed a positive association between
distributive justice and employee engagement. Another study carried out in India
linking distributive justice and procedural justice to employee engagement through
social exchange mediators found a relationship between distributive justice and
employee engagement through one of the social exchange mediators namely perceived
social exchange (Biswas et al., 2018).
All organizations are continuously faced with major decisions on how best to
allocate the often scarce resources and rewards to its employees in a manner that
positively impacts them (Leventhal, 2014). Studies on fairness perceptions of
allocations have been largely based on equity theory which is anchored on the idea that
social behavior is conditioned by the distribution of outcomes. This theory proposes
that individuals do not receive their distributions passively rather for significant
outcomes; they carefully evaluate them often based on the outcomes obtained by other
people in similar situations (Cropanzano & Schminke, 2017). In equity theory, people
compare ratios of their own perceived work outcomes (that is, rewards such as pay, pay
rise, bonuses) to their own perceived work input (that is, contributions such as time,
effort and intellect) to the corresponding ratios of a comparison other (such as a work
colleague). Equal ratios have positive outcomes in the organizational setting such as
creating feelings of satisfaction whereas unequal ratios lead to negative emotional states
such as guilt or anger (Green, 2014).
The employment relationship is especially significant in view of equity as it is a
social and economic exchange whereby the parties to the relationship are obliged to
reciprocate benefits so as to maintain the relationship (Aryee et al., 2016). Among the
justice dimensions, distributive justice is related more to an economic exchange
relationship than the other forms of justice based on the views of Roch and Shanock
(2016) as cited by (Thurston Jr & McNall, 2016) and since one of the greatest issues
around inequality in organizations has to do with the distribution of rewards, it is
important for managers and supervisors to ensure fair work norms and compensation
(Biswas et al., 2018). In order to measure distributive justice effectively, scholars
advocate the use of pay fairness as a measure for several reasons: the use of specific
fairness measures to helps to reduce the unsystematic variance in justice measures, it is
a salient outcome for all employees, and pay is a target of distributive justice
perceptions which is common in the organizational justice literature (Folger &
Konovsky, 2015). Organizations find that it is especially important to be predictable
and consistent in terms of the distribution of rewards as this forms a significant
component of distributive justice (Saks, 2014).
A study conducted by Folger and Konovsky (2015) on 217 employees about pay
raises found a link between distributive justice and pay satisfaction. Distributive justice
was more strongly related to pay satisfaction than procedural justice. A study by
McFarlin and Sweeney (2015) involving 675 employees of a Midwestern bank in the
United States established the same results that indeed distributive justice was a more
important predictor of pay satisfaction than procedural justice.
Performance appraisal involves several procedures that are critical to the
appraisal process. These may include setting goals at the onset of the appraisal period,
outlining the key deliverables, carrying out timely frequent formal and informal
feedback sessions to monitor progress and provide support, and conducting a formal
review often at the end of the appraisal period to analyze what has been achieved in
light of the goals set at the start of the appraisal period. These processes have a
significant influence on employee’s perceptions towards their job roles, their
supervisors and the entire organization based on the perceived fairness or unfairness of
how they are carried out (Thurston Jr & McNall, 2016). Since the purpose is to instill in
employees a desire for continuous improvement, performance appraisals should be
redesigned in order to move away from traditional performance appraisal systems that
are often not effective to processes that ensure perceptions of fairness such as
distributive justice along with the other justice dimensions (Latham, Almost, Mann, &
Moore, 2015). A study carried out by Thurston and McNall (2016) that involved 188
employees from four organizations in the United States found that distributive justice is
related to satisfaction with the performance appraisal. Although procedural,
informational and distributive justices are highly correlated, distributive justice is a
better predictor of employee satisfaction with the current performance appraisal than
the other justice dimensions. Saks and Gruman (2014) agree with this view stating that
distributive justice is an important justice dimension that contributes to fairness

perceptions in performance appraisal outcomes. When employees lack control over the
performance appraisal criteria or when the criteria is irrelevant to their role then they
may perceive the final performance ranking is not fair. In order to foster employee
engagement, organizations need to ensure that their performance management
facilitates and supports employee development, enhances employee involvement, and
develops organizational trust and organizational justice (Saratun, 2016). A study
involving 163 employees of a large retail chain found that distributive justice was
positively related to performance appraisal ratings satisfaction (Jawahar, 2017).
Performance appraisal as an outcome is associated with distributive justice in
terms of the decision norm used such as the equity rule in that fairness is based on the
perceptions of how appraisal allocations conform to existing social norms. When
managers develop appraisals based on other norm such as equality, need or social
status, the outcomes are perceived to be unfair (Leventhal, 2014; Thurston & McNall,
2016). Baldwin (2016) partly agrees with this view stating that while the equity rule is
upheld in many organizational practices such as standardized job grades and salary
bands as well as HR policies across all employees, the equity rule can sometimes be
overruled by equality, where all employees receive the same allocation or need rule
whereby different outcomes are meted to employees based on their unique personal
circumstances.
Interactional justice is the most recent justice dimension which deals with
interpersonal and informational justice constructs (Muzumdar, 2018) and is defined as
“people’s sensitivity to the quality of interpersonal treatment they receive during the
enactment of organizational procedures” (Green, 2014). Researchers have not always

agreed on the distinction between procedural and interactional justice which has led to a
going back and forth over the difference between the two justices. A study by
Cropanzano (2016) suggests that there is indeed a distinction between procedural and
interactional justice and argues that although they are correlated, they should be treated
as separate constructs as they have different consequences. This dimension of justice
constitutes an additional source of perceived fairness, playing an intermediary role
between organizational procedures and outcome distributions (Green, 2014). It is
fostered when the relevant persons in authority, chiefly management communicate
procedural details in a respectful way, demonstrating dignity by explaining their
decisions using honest and truthful information (Green, 2014; Cropanzano, 2016).
Several studies have established a link between interactional justice and various
organizational behavior outcomes such as trust in both the supervisor and the
organization, organization citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, turnover
intentions and job satisfaction (Aryee et al., 2016). These findings are similar to those
of a study carried out in Pakistan involving employees of different commercial banks
which indicate that a significant relationship exists between interactional justice and job
satisfaction (Usmani & Jamal, 2017). The same findings on the link between
interactional justice and job satisfaction were found in a study carried out in Iran that
involved employees working at an Iranian Bank (Abasi, Mohammadipour, & Aidi,
2014).
Skarlicki and Folger (2017) conducted a study involving 240 employees of a
manufacturing plant in the United States and established that interactional justice is the
most important justice dimension in minimizing retaliatory tendencies of employees.

When supervisors and managers show sufficient sensitivity and concern for employees,
treating them with dignity and respect, these employees seem somewhat willing to
tolerate unfair pay distribution and unfair procedures. This is an interesting finding
given the importance of fair pay distribution for organizational members. In another
study carried out by Chiaburu and Lim (2018) that involved one hundred twenty (120)
employee-supervisor dyads, interactional justice was found to be positively related to
organizational citizenship behaviors. Vuuren, Dhurup, and Joubert (2016) agree with
this view in their findings that interactional justice predicts organizational citizenship
behavior. Two hundred eighteen employees working in the computer technology field
in different organizations in Germany were surveyed and the findings were that
interactional justice enhances organizational loyalty. Supervisors who freely share
pertinent information, are supportive and demonstrate empathy arouse positive feelings
in employees resulting in their commitment to the organization; thus, making
employees not want to quit. In addition, the study established that interactional justice
leads to sustained job performance and lower mental impairment (Otto & Mamatoglu,
2015).
Employee engagement has been found to be linked to a number of work
outcomes such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, organizational
citizenship behavior, turnover intention, job performance and extra-role behavior
(Ghosh et al., 2014). Given the evidence that interactional justice is associated with the
same organizational outcomes as employee engagement, it is logical to construe that
interactional justice will be linked to employee engagement. A study of 323 managers
working in manufacturing and pharmaceutical organizations in Western India suggests

that interactional justice is positively associated to work engagement (Agarwal, 2014).
In addition, another study of 220 employees of public sector banks in India established
that interactional justice determines job engagement and organization engagement
which are the two constructs of employee engagement (Ghosh et al., 2014).
Interactional justice constitutes interpersonal justice and informational justice
whereby interpersonal justice is concerned with interaction rules of respect and
propriety rules whereas informational justice is concerned with interaction rules of
justification and truthfulness (Green, 2014). The difference between interpersonal and
informational justice lies in the different aspects of communication, in that,
interpersonal justice can be seen to focus on the ‘how’ of the communication, that is the
courteousness and respectfulness of it whereas informational justice can be said to
focus on the ‘what’ of the communication, that is, the honesty and truthfulness of the
information (Saks & Gruman, 2014).
It has increasingly become important to move away from focusing solely on the
decision making aspect of procedures to include the interpersonal aspect as well since
procedures involve social interactions (Green, 2014; Tyler & Blader, 2017). Although
the interpersonal facets of procedures have previously been contained within the
procedural justice framework, recent studies have established that this is such a
significant component that it should be treated as a separate type of justice. A key
component in shaping justice perceptions is, therefore, the study of the quality of these
interactions (Tyler & Blader, 2017). Interpersonal justice is the enactment of
organizational procedures by supervisors and managers which is demonstrated when
supervisors explain decisions to employees while treating them with dignity and
respect, showing concern for individuals regarding the distributive outcomes they
receive by presenting negative information with an expression of remorse over the
negative outcomes or a high rate of caring and sensitivity (Green, 2014; Fischer,
Abubakar, & Nyaboke Arasa, 2014).
Various studies have established that interpersonal justice is linked to a variety of
organizational outcomes. Fair treatment by one’s supervisor is strongly associated with
employees’ health, even in non-western settings such as Kenya (Fischer et al., 2014). A
study conducted in a Kenyan sample on the effects of organizational justice on general
health established that interpersonal justice is more important in shaping employee
health. Greater interpersonal justice was associated with better mental health (Fischer et
al., 2014) which is in line with the findings of a similar study that found that high levels
of interactional justice are related to lower sickness absence rates for all ages (Skarlicki
& Folger, 2017). When interpersonal justice levels are high, theft is minimized, the
acceptance rate of a smoking ban increases and turnover cognitions are reduced (Green,
2014). An interesting finding is that interpersonal justice as shown by supervisors when
they demonstrate adequate sensitivity and concern toward employees and treat them
with dignity and respect, results in employees seeming somewhat willing to tolerate the
combination of an unfair pay distribution and unfair procedures (Skarlicki & Folger,
2017). On the other hand, research on engagement has found that interactional justice
has a positive influence on employee engagement, work engagement and organizational
engagement and more so that interpersonal treatment by supervisors has an influence
on employee engagement (Alvi & Abbasi, 2016; Ghosh et al., 2014).

Informational justice entails not only providing employees with adequate, good
quality honest information, but also demonstrating genuineness in the intent of the
procedures which should be based on logical reasoning (Green, 2014). It is similar to
procedural justice, in that the focus is on the events which precede the determination of
the outcome, but for informational justice, the perceptions are socially rather than
structurally determined. A focus of informational justice is on explanations on why
certain procedures were followed or why outcomes were distributed the way that they
were (Colquitt et al., 2015). These explanations help to evaluate the structural aspects,
that is procedures and allocations of the process (Colquitt et al., 2015). Mangers have a
fair amount of control over informational justice as this type of justice is less
constrained by organizational system forces (Scott, Garza, Conlon, & Kim, 2014).
Performance appraisals provide an excellent opportunity for demonstrating
informational justice. In this regard, informational justice is based on; clarity on setting
of performance goals and standards, feedback provided in a timely manner, clarity of
expectations and explanations of how the performance appraisal outcome was reached
(Thurston & McNall, 2016). A study on appraisal systems established that
informational justice perceptions were significantly related to satisfaction with
appraisal feedback and satisfaction with the rater who often happens to be the manager
or supervisor (Jawahar, 2017). These findings are similar to those of a study carried out
by (Thurston & McNall, 2016) that established that informational justice was positively
associated with satisfaction with the supervisor. Informational justice is also associated
with affective commitment, turnover intentions, personal accomplishment and
emotional exhaustion (Otto & Mamatoglu, 2015). These findings confirm those of a
meta-analytic review of justice literature carried out by Colquitt et al. (2015) that
indicate that informational justice is significantly related to trust and is a strong
predictor of organizational, citizenship behaviours, withdrawal and negative reactions
According to the study of Gupta and Kumar (2015), their research on public
employees’ engagement indicates that employee perceptions of organizational justice
plays an important role in deciding his/her engagement at the workplace with studies
demonstrating that employees who perceive organizational justice during performance
appraisal processes are more likely to be engaged in their work and exhibit greater
well-being. Employee engagement and organizational justice are relevant and important
in today’s public organizations because government agencies are seeking affordable
and effective means to improve employees’ psychological health and to prevent costs
related to mental health problems such as low performance and absenteeism (Gaudet,
Tremblay & Doucet , 2014). In addition, Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler and Schminke
(2017) argued that the following are the three reasons organizational justice is
important to employees. Firstly, it is the long-range benefit that implies employees
prefer justice because it allows them to predict and control the outcomes, they are likely
to receive from their organizations. Secondly, it is the social consideration because
employees are social beings who prefer to be accepted and valued by important others.
They regard being exploited or harmed by powerful decision-makers in their
organizations as a form of organizational injustice. Thirdly, it is the ethical
consideration because employees are concerned about fair practices in their
organization. They believe it is the morally appropriate way others should be treated in
an organization.
The above descriptions of the variables organizational justice and work
engagement suggest that the organizational justice dimensions in particular could
possibly be related to employee engagement. However, there is scarcity on research
that specifically explores the relationship between organizational justice and work
engagement in a public service organization. Scientific information about this
relationship is, therefore, needed in order to initiate relevant interventions to enhance
employee engagement in a public service organization. Based on the literature review,
the objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between organizational
justice perceptions and employee engagement levels of the personnel in Pampanga
Provincial Capitol.
This study aimed to investigate the effect of organizational justice on employee
engagement.
Specifically, it sought answers to the following problems:
1. How may the demographic profile of the respondents be described in terms of:
1.1. age;
1.2. gender;
1.3. civil status;
1.4. length of service;
1.5. department or office?
2. How may the respondents’ perception of organizational justice be assessed in terms
of:
2.1. procedural justice;
2.2. distributive justice; and

2.3. interactional justice?
3. How may the respondents’ employee engagement be assessed?
4. Is there a significant relationship between the employees’ profile vis-a-vis their
perception of organizational justice?
5. Is there a significant relationship between the employees’ profile vis-a-vis their
employee engagement?
6. Is there a significant effect between respondents’ perception of organizational
justice and employee engagement?
7. What interventions may be proposed to the public personnel of Pampanga Provincial
Capitol based from the findings?
The null hypotheses of the study are as follows:
1. There is no significant relationship between the employees’ profile vis-a-vis their
perception of organizational justice.
2. There is no significant relationship between the employees’ profile vis-a-vis their
employee engagement.
3. There is no significant effect between respondents’ perception of organizational
justice and employee engagement?

Demographic Profile
Organizational Justice
Procedural Justice Employee Engagement

Distributive Justice
Interactional Justice
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of the study was anchored from Adams’ Equity Theory
as cited by Folger & Konovsky (2015). Work of Adams on equity theory has shown
that employee job performance may increase or decrease in relation to perceptions of
inequitable outcomes such as employee engagement. This means that while employees
contribute their time and effort to the organization, employers compensate them through
appropriate rewards and recognition. In this context, employees’ opinion about equity or
inequity is based on their social comparison with a referent individual or group (Biswas,
Varma, & Ramaswami, 2018). It is, therefore, determined that employees who believe
that their organizations have treated them fairly are more likely to hold positive views of
other aspects related to the organization such as their work, work outcomes and their
supervisors.
The study, with its focus of assessing the respondents’ perception of
organizational justice (procedural, distributive and interactional justice) and the
relationship on employee engagement will be of great benefit to the following:

Administration. They can use this research to enhance the engagement of their
employees and, thereby, increase the performance of the entire organization through the
new insights that will be provided in this research and also to shape the employee job
attitudes towards more positive ones.
Human Resource Officers. This research study will help lend a hand in
improving their strategies and policies that will increase employees’ engagement which
will lead to an improved employees’ job performance.
Personnel. The result of this research will provide employees’ awareness,
understanding and knowledge regarding their organizational justice perception and
consequently, their job engagement.
Future Researchers. It would contribute to the broader realm of public and
academic research through its recommendations. The study would be of significance to
research in the broader area of people management and provide a foundation for future
studies.
The study was carried out at the Provincial Capitol of Pampanga and investigated
the effect of organizational justice on employee engagement. It focused on two hundred
thirty four (234) rank and file permanent employees of the Provincial Capitol and was
carried out on March 2019. The results of the study, therefore, was limited to the
Capitol’s offices and departments only.

METHOD
This section discusses the methods and procedures that were used in undertaking
the study based upon the research questions previously outlined. The focus is on: the
research design, population and sampling design, data collection methods, research
procedures and data analysis methods.
Research Design
A research design is a blueprint for the collection, measurement and analysis of
data based on the research questions of the study (Sekaran & Bougie, 2015). It entails
the general plan of how the researcher intends to go about answering research questions
(Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2015). A research design acts as a guide on the sources of
data for data collection purposes, how the data will be collected and analyzed, the ethical
issues and constraints that may be encountered and the different research activities that
will be undertaken and their corresponding timelines (Cooper & Schindler, 2014).
The study utilized descriptive correlational method of research in assessing the
relationship between respondents’ perception of organizational justice and employee
engagement. Descriptive research design is one where the objectives of the study are on
finding out who, where, what, when and how of the research topic (Cooper &
Schindler, 2014). The descriptive research design is ideal for the study as there are
clearly outlined research questions. This design allowed for the systematic analysis of
the impact of organizational justice (independent variables) on employee engagement
(dependent variable), and it reduced bias, as well as offering a deeper understanding of
the aforementioned constructs (Sekaran & Bougie, 2015). The dependent variable of
the study was employee engagement while procedural justice, distributive justice and
interactional justice were the independent variables. The dependent variable changes in
response to changes in other variables, which are the independent variables (Saunders
et al., 2015).
Participants of the Study
The study was conducted among the personnel of the provincial capitol of
Pampanga located at Barangay Sto. Nino, City of San Fernando, Pampanga. The target
population of this is study were the regular employees regardless of rank. The said
provincial office has a total number of five hundred ninety-three (593).
The respondents were chosen using probability sampling, specifically stratified
random sampling and convenience sampling techniques. In obtaining the stratified
random sample, the population was divided into their respective departments.
Appropriate number of personnel per department were selected using convenience
sampling to ensure that the research have adequate respondents in each department.
Table 1 shows the total population and sample of the respondents of the study in
their respective departments. Raosoft sample size calculator was used in the
computation. According to Raosoft (Raosoft.com), the margin of error is the amount of
error tolerable and this is selected by the researcher depending on the precision needed
to make population estimates for a given sample. The confidence level ranges from 90 to
100 percent (Raosoft, n.d.). Thus, for the purpose of this study, the population is 593 and
using a margin of error of 5 percent (which is usually used in scientific research), a
confidence level of 95 percent and a response distribution of 50 percent gives a sample
size of 234 (Raosoft.com).

Table 1
Frequency Distribution of the Respondents
Name of the Percentage

Department Population Sample Size
Department
GOVERNOR’S 18%
1 106 42
OFFICE
VICE 6%
2 GOVERNOR’S 34 13
OFFICE
3 HRMO 17 7 3%
4 P.P.D.O. 15 6 3%
5 P.G.S.O. 25 10 4%
6 BUDGET 14 6 2%
7 ACCOUNTANT 27 11 5%
8 P.T.O. 43 17 7%
9 ASSESSOR 23 9 4%
10 LEGAL 8 3 1%
11 LIBRARY 11 4 2%
12 P.H.O. 26 10 4%
13 ENRO 8 3 1%
14 P.S.W.D.O. 21 8 4%
15 POPCOM 17 7 3%
16 P.E.E.D. 18 7 3%
17 O.P.A. 65 26 11%
18 P.E.O. 92 36 16%
19 Veterinary 23 9 4%
Total 593 234 100 %
Instrument
In this study, organizational justice was adapted from Niehoff and Moorman
(1993) and employee engagement instrument from Schaufeli and Bakker (2004). The
questionnaire on organizational justice was divided into three areas: procedural,
distributive and interactional justice. One item on procedural justice which is negatively
stated was removed to achieve consistency of responses. Moreover, the questionnaire on
employee engagement was also divided into the following areas: vigor, dedication and
absorption. Hard copies of the structured questionnaire were printed and handed out to
respondents. The questionnaire was arranged in three sections: Section one focused on
the demographics, section two is based on the independent variable (organizational
justice), and section three is based on the dependent variable (employee engagement).
The questionnaire consisted of closed questions and provided a four-point Likert scale
that ranged from 1 - strongly disagree; 2 - disagree; 3 - agree; 4 - strongly agree. This
data collection method was utilized because it is accurate and provides anonymity for
the respondents.
Data Collection
The researcher sought the approval of the Dean of the Graduate School of
________ and her thesis adviser to undertake this research study. All the required
approvals from the Administrative Office in the Provincial Capitol of Pampanga were
obtained before the conduct of this study. All office heads were informed by the
researcher requesting permission to conduct an employee survey in his/her office
handing the approval letter of their Administrative Officer. Upon permission from the
office heads, the questionnaires were distributed. All offices in the Provincial Capitol
participated in the survey.

The collection of data was accomplished by the researcher. Adequate care was
undertaken while distributing the questionnaires to ensure that they will be given to the
provincial employees.
Data Analysis
The following statistical tools were utilized upon gathering, encoding and
tabulating the data: Frequency – Percentage Distribution; Mean; Pearson Correlation and
Multiple Regression Analysis.
The frequency-percentage distribution was used to determine the distribution of
demographic profile of the respondents. In terms of the level of respondent’s perception
of procedural and distributive justice as well as the assessment of employee engagement,
mean of the responses was calculated. Chi-square was utilized in assessing the
relationship between respondents’ demographic profile vis-a-viz their perception on
organizational justice and engagement. In addition, Multiple Regression Analysis was
used in determining the relationship between organizational justice and employee
engagement.
The following ranges in Table 2 were used to come up with the corresponding
general response category for the means to be obtained:

Table 2
Descriptive Equivalent of Mean
Weighted Mean Point Scale Descriptive Rating
3.25 – 4.00 4 Strongly Agree
2.50 – 3.24 3 Agree
1.75 – 2.49 2 Disagree
1.00 – 1.74 1 Strongly Disagree
Source: Subong, P. & Beldia, M. (2015). Statistics for Research: Applications in
Research, Thesis and Dissertation Writing, and Statistical Data Management Using SPSS
Software.
Ethical Considerations
All respondents will be formally provided with the research information and their
consent will be obtained via standard template before their involvement in the research
study. The anonymity and confidentiality of the respondents and data will be ensured.
Raw data obtained through the conduct of the survey will be kept secured and will be
treated with utmost confidentiality not to jeopardize actuality and accuracy. Participation
on the survey will be voluntary and each may withdraw from completing the
questionnaire at any time.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter contains the results, findings, analysis and interpretations of the study.
It specifically discusses the profile of the respondents, results of the assessment of
organizational justice and employee engagement, and the results of the various statistical
tests applied in measuring the research hypotheses.
Demographic profile of the Respondents
Table 3 reflects the distribution of the respondents in terms of age, sex, civil status
and length of service. In terms of age most of them are within the age range of 31-40 years
old comprising 34.19 percent. This age range comprise of the generation X, born 1965-
1980 and the Millennials, born 1981 to 1996 (Dimock, 2019). This is followed by those
within the age range of 21-30 years old with 26.92 percent. The result in terms of age are
consistent with the data of the Philippine Statistics Administration (PSA) that most of the
Filipinos employed are from the millennial age group (Jovilan, 2018). In terms of sex,
majority of the respondents are female with 55.98 percent. Although there is a minimal
difference in terms of percentage as to male respondents with 44.02 percent. This shows
that in terms of sex, the composition of the respondents is fairly distributed. However,
latest data from PSA shows that most employed Filipinos are male (Jovilan, 2018). With
regards to civil status, many of the respondents are married consisting 52.99 percent.
Further, bulk of the respondents are connected with the organization for less than ten years
as can be seen in Table 3 with 41.88 percent of the respondents. The findings in terms of
civil status and length of service may be consistent with the composition of the
respondents in terms of age.

Table 3
Demographic profile of the Respondents
Profile Percent (%)

Age 21 - 30 26.92
31 - 40 34.19
41 - 50 19.23
51 - 60 13.68
61 up 5.98
Total 100
Sex Male 44.02
Female 55.98
Total 100
Civil Status Single 41.03
Married 52.99
Widow/er 4.70
Separated 1.28
Total 100
Length of Service Less than 10 years 41.88
11 - 20 32.91
21 - 30 18.38
31 - 40 6.84
Total 100
Assessment of Organizational Justice
The assessment of the respondents’ perception of organizational justice, in particular
procedural justice is shown on Table 4. It can be noted that the respondents, generally,
show an agreement in their perception of fairness of the procedures and processes used to
make decisions. Specifically, the respondents strongly agreed that their manager makes
sure that all their concerns are heard and before making a decision, he/ she collects first
accurate and complete information with the following computed mean of 3.54 and 3.57,
respectively. Moreover, they agreed that their manager clarifies decisions and provides
additional information when requested by employees. They also agreed that all job
decisions are applied consistently to all affected employees and that employees are
allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by their managers. This means that the
employees perceived that in their organization, fair and respectful decision are being
made. Also, policies and procedures are created where all perspectives and concerns are
taken into consideration. The results are consistent with the finding of Tyler and Blader
(2017) who found that perceptions of procedural justice led to greater overall satisfaction
with the way managers make decision.
Table 4
Assessment of Procedural Justice
Indicators Mean Description

1. My manager makes sure that all
employee concerns are heard before job 3.54 Strongly Agree
decisions are made.
2. To make job decisions, my manager
collects accurate and complete 3.57 Strongly Agree
information
3. My manager clarifies decisions and
3.08
provides additional information when Agree
requested by employees.
4. All jobs decisions are applied 3.18
Agree
consistently to all affected employees.
5. Employees are allowed to challenge or
2.35
appeal job decisions made by their Agree
managers.
TOTAL 3.14/ Agree
The respondents’ assessment of their perception of distributive justice is reflected in
Table 5. A strong agreement was recorded given the computed overall mean of 3.29.
Specifically, the respondents strongly agreed that their work schedule, work load and job
responsibilities are fair. On the other hand, an agreement was noted among the
respondents that the rewards they receive are quite fair. Results show that generally the
respondents view fairness in terms of the outcomes received as a result of an allocation
decision based on what they receive or obtain in the organization. In the study made by
Brockner et al. (2014), distributive justice deals with the fairness of the outcomes resulting
from an organizational change. Further, Mishra and Spreitzer (2016) discuss how the fair
distribution of workload in the organization will facilitate the perceived fairness in terms
of distribution and affects how employees feel the need to defend scarce resources.
Table 5
Assessment of Distributive Justice
1. My work schedule is fair. 3.61 Strongly Agree
2. I think that my pay is fair. 2.97 Agree
3. I consider my work load to be quite fair. 3.34 Strongly Agree
4. Overall the rewards I receive here are

3.16 Agree
quite fair.
5. I feel that my job responsibilities are fair. 3.35 Strongly Agree
TOTAL 3.29/ Strongly Agree

Reflected in Table 6 is the assessment of the respondents’ perception of interactional
justice. Results show that, generally the respondents strongly agree that there is fairness in
terms of the quality of interpersonal treatment they receive during the enactment of
organizational procedures with the computed overall mean of 3.46. Details show that in all
of the scales of this dimension of organizational justice, the respondents strongly agreed.
They strongly agreed that they are treated with kindness, consideration, respect and
dignity when decisions are made about their job. Further, they strongly agreed that their
manager is sensitive to their personal need and deals with them in a truthful manner when
making decisions. Moreover, strong agreement was also noted that their manager shows
concern for their right as an employee and discusses to them the implications of any
decision concerning their job. More so, adequate justification and explanations are offered
by their manager concerning their job’s decisions. This means that in terms of
interactional justice respondents view fairness in their interaction with each other at work,
not just how managers treat them team members but also on how they relate to their how
co-workers and colleagues. Establishing standards of conduct is critical to ensuring a high
level of respect is shown to employees and to ensure the organization is regarded as a fair
and safe workplace. The study of Akoh and Amah (2015) proposed that the dignity of
persons during interpersonal relationships should be maintained and communicating
respectfully when dealing with the organizational members or employees in order to
enhance interactional justice.

Table 6
Assessment of Interactional Justice

1. When decisions are made about my job, the
3.41
manager treats me with kindness and Strongly Agree
consideration.
2. When decisions are made about my job, the 3.48
Strongly Agree
manager treats me with respect and dignity.
3. When decisions are made about my job, the 3.37
Strongly Agree
manager is sensitive to my personal needs.
3.49 Strongly Agree
manager deals with me in a truthful manner.
3.53
manager shows concern for my right as an Strongly Agree
employee.
6. Concerning decisions made about my job,
3.46
the manager discusses with me the Strongly Agree
implications of the decisions.
7. The manager offers adequate justification 3.44
Strongly Agree
for decisions made about my job.
8. When making decisions about my job, the
3.46
manager offers explanations that make sense Strongly Agree
to me.
9. My manager explains very clearly any 3.51
Strongly Agree
decisions made about my job.
TOTAL 3.46/ Strongly Agree
Assessment of Employee Engagement
The assessment of the respondents’ perception of their interactional justice can be
seen in Table 7. The computed grand mean of 3.19 shows an agreement in terms of their
engagement in the organization. Strong agreement was established by the respondents in
terms of the following scales of interactional justice: At work, they feel bursting with
energy; at their job, they feel strong and vigorous; they find their work full of meaning
and purpose; they are proud of the work that they do; their job is challenging; and time
flies when they are working. Further, the respondents agreed on the following scales:
When they get up in the morning, they feel like going to work; they can continue working
for very long periods at a time; they are very resilient mentally on their job; at work, they
always persevere even when things do not go well; they are enthusiastic about their job;
their job inspires them; when they are working, they forget everything else around them;
they feel happy when they are working intensely; they are immersed in their work; they
get carried away when they are working; and it is difficult for them to detach themselves
for their job. It is noteworthy that the results reveal a high level of engagement among the
respondents. The results imply that the respondents are committed to the organizations’
goals and values, motivated to contribute to organizational success, with an enhanced
sense of their own well-being. Because employees who are high in engagement contribute
to their organizations with higher levels of task performance and organizational
citizenship behavior which results in competitive advantages for organizations (Rich,
Lepine & Crawford, 2015).
Table 7
Assessment of Employee Engagement

1. At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
3.27 Strongly Agree
2. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
3.28 Strongly Agree
3. When I get up in the morning, I feel like
going to work. 3.15 Agree
4. I can continue working for very long periods
at a time. 3.18 Agree
5. At my job, I am very resilient mentally.

3.10 Agree
6. At my work I always persevere, even when

things do not go well. 3.21 Agree
7. I find the work that I do full of meaning and

3.32 Strongly Agree
purpose
8. I am enthusiastic about my job.
3.13 Agree
9. My job inspires me.
3.20 Agree
10. I am proud on the work that I do.
3.39 Strongly Agree
11. To me, my job is challenging.
3.42 Strongly Agree
12. Time flies when I am working.
3.44 Strongly Agree
13. When I am working, I forget everything else
2.86 Agree
around me.
14. I feel happy when I am working intensely.
3.13 Agree
15. I am immersed in my work.
3.03 Agree
16. I get carried away when I am working.
3.06 Agree
17. It is difficult to detach myself from my job.
3.06 Agree
TOTAL
3.19/ Agree
Employee Profile and Organizational Justice
Association between Respondents’ Profile and Procedural Justice
Using Chi-square, Table 8 reflect the test of significant association between the
respondents’ demographic profile and their perception of procedural justice. Results
revealed that the relationship between all the profile used in this study, specifically age,
sex, civil status and length of service and their perception of procedural justice are non-
significant given the p-values of 0.863, 0.237, 0.133 and 0.564, respectively. This means
that perception of procedural justice of the respondents is not being influenced by
demographic profile such as age, sex, civil status and length of service. The results will
lead to the acceptance of the null hypothesis that no significant relationship exists between
demographic profiles and procedural justice. However, in the study made by Tenhiala et al
(2015) among Finnish public sector employee, age-related differences affect perception of
procedural justice. Moreover, in terms of gender, there were no substantial gender
differences in how procedural justice (Kulik et al, 2016) is being perceived.
Table 8
Association between Respondents’ Demographic Profile and Procedural Justice
Demographic χ2 Computed Degrees of

P-value Interpretation
Profile Value Freedom
Age 1.288 4 0.863 Non-significant
Sex 1.398 1 0.237 Non-significant
Civil Status 4.037 2 0.133 Non-significant
Length of
2.039 3 0.564 Non-significant
Service
Note: Some of the rows were merged to achieve at least 5 counts among all cells.
The test for significant association between respondents’ demographic profile and
perception of distributive justice using chi square is reflected in Table 9. It is noteworthy
that age, sex, civil status and length of service are highly associated with the respondents’
perception of distributive justice with p-values of 0.000, 0.000, 0.008 and 0.020,
respectively. This implies that the way the respondents perceive distributive justice in
their organization may vary depending on their profile. The results would lead to the
rejection of the null hypothesis that no relationship exist between demographic profile and
distributive justice. The result in terms of gender is consistent with the study made my
Kulik et al (2016) which revealed that men and women did differ in how they defined
distributive justice, with women placing more emphasis on their perceived standing and
on their perceptions of the favorability of their outcomes.
Table 9
Association between Respondents’ Demographic Profile and Distributive Justice

Highly
Age 21.802 4 0.000
significant
Highly
Sex 13.013 1 0.000
significant
Highly
Civil Status 9.666 2 0.008
significant
Length of Highly
11.293 3 0.010
Service significant
In terms of interactional justice, Table 10 displays the results of the Chi-square test
of significant association between respondents’ demographic profile and perception of
interactional justice. The test revealed that age and civil status are highly associated with
perception of interactional justice given the p -values of 0.009 and 0.002, respectively.
Moreover, test of association between length of service and interactional justice indicates
significant relationship with p-value of 0.035. This means that the way the respondents
view interactional justice in their organization may be influenced by their respective
profiles. So, the null hypothesis stating that no relationship exists between demographic
profile, in terms of age, civil status and length of service and interactional justice is
rejected. However, with the p-value of 0.402, no association was established between sex
and perception of interactional justice. Thereby accepting the null hypothesis that there is
no significant relationship between demographic profile, specifically sex, and interactional
justice. The result in terms of age is in contrary with the findings of Ansari et al (2016)
among organizational workforce in Pakistan where organizational justice perceptions,
particularly interactional justice are higher in the case of females than males as is evident
through consistently higher percentages of females. Further, Taamneh (2015) found out
among Jordaninans that there is no statistically significant differences of respondents
answers to the level of interactional justice practice due to demographic variables
specifically in terms of gender, age, qualification, experience.
Table 10
Association between Respondents’ Demographic Profile and Interactional Justice

Highly
Age 13.609 4 0.009
Significant
Sex 0.701 1 0.402 Non-significant
Highly
Civil Status 12.667 2 0.002
Significant
Length of
8.629 3 0.035 Significant
Service
Employee Profile and Employee Engagement
The Chi-square test for the significant association between respondents’
demographic profile and employee engagement is reflected on Table 11. Findings
revealed that age, sex and length of service are highly associated with employee
engagement with p-values of 0.008, 0.000 and 0.004, respectively. The results show that
employee engagement may vary depending on the profile of the respondents specifically,
age, sex, and length of service. Thus, rejecting the null hypothesis stating that there is no
significant relationship between demographic profile, in terms of age, sex and length of
service and employee engagement. On the other hand, no association was established
between civil status and employee engagement with p-value of 0.606. Hence, the null
hypothesis stating that there is no significant relationship between demographic profile, in
terms of civil status and employee engagement is accepted. Sharma and Gangwani (2017)
stated in their study that demographic variables have a very significant effect on
engagement as the personal profile of an individual plays a very vital role in deciding the
level of engagement and commitment an employee has towards its organization.
Furthermore, in the study made among Indian employees, results indicate significant
differences in engagement scores for three demographic variables under study i.e., gender,
marital status and experience. Female employees in the organization were more engaged
to their jobs as compared to their male counterparts. Engagement levels of married and
senior employees were also found to be high (Shukla, Adhikari & Singh, 2015).
Table 11
Association between Respondents’ Demographic Profile and Employee Engagement

Highly
Age 13.772 4 0.008
Significant
Highly
Sex 13.205 1 0.000
Significant
Civil Status 1.003 2 0.606 Non- Significant
Length of Highly
13.168 3 0.004
Service Significant
Organizational Justice and Employee Engagement
The test of significant effect of organizational justice – procedural, distributive and
interactional - on employee engagement can be found on Table 12. Findings revealed that
both procedural and distributive justice significantly affect employee engagement with the
computed p-values of 0.000 and 0.000 respectively. Consequently, the null hypothesis
stating that procedural justice and distributive justice have no significant effect to
employee engagement is rejected. Conversely, interactional justice has no effect on
employee engagement given the computed p-value of 0.058. The results would imply that
the fairness and transparency of the processes by which decisions are made as well as the
fairness in the distribution of rights and resources may have significant impact on
employee engagement. On the other hand, the respondents’ engagement may not be
influenced by the way they are being treated in the organization. Thereby, accepting the
null hypothesis that interactional justice does not significantly affect employee
engagement. The results are somehow consistent with the findings of Ozer, Ugurluoglu
and Saygili (2017) in their study among the health care sector in Turkey which suggested
that the most significant effect was created by procedural justice subsequently followed by
distributive and interactional justice as regards to work engagement. Morever, He, Zhu, &
Zheng ( 2016) noted that procedural justice has a positive impact on employee
engagement which is an important aspect for many sectors especially where job burnout
and turnover intention is more likely to happen. Further substantiating the results are the
studies in terms of distributive justice where findings indicated that perceptions of
distributive justice are positively related to job engagement and organization engagement
from various organization in Canada (Saks, 2014). These findings are in line also with
those of a study conducted by Alvi and Abbasi (2016) in Pakistan that showed a positive
association between distributive justice and employee engagement.
In terms of interactional justice, results of this study are in contradictory with the
study among 323 managers working in manufacturing and pharmaceutical organizations
in Western India which suggests that interactional justice is positively associated to work
engagement (Agarwal, 2014). In addition, another study of 220 employees of public sector
banks in India established that interactional justice determines job engagement and
organization engagement which are the two constructs of employee engagement (Ghosh et
al., 2014).
Table 12
Effect of Organizational Justice on Employee Engagement
Unstandardized Standardized
Organizational Coefficients Coefficients Computed
Justice Std. t-value
B Beta
Error
(Constant) 2.461 0.226 10.892 0.000
Highly
procedural 0.303 0.071 0.310 4.284 0.000
Significant
Highly
distributive -0.182 0.047 -0.250 -3.849 0.000
Significant
Non-
interactional 0.107 0.056 0.132 1.907 0.058
significant
CONCLUSION
After reviewing various literature and studies on employee engagement as well the
findings of this study, it can be certainly concluded that:
1. Employees at the Provincial Capitol of Pampanga belong to the millennials and
generation X. Most are female, married and have been in the service for less than ten
years.
2. The assessment of the employees on perception of organizational justice resulted in
an agreement over procedural justice and strong agreement in terms of distributive
and interactional justice.
3. Generally, high employee engagement was established as the employees agreed in
most of the scales of employee engagement. As high levels of employee engagement
will lead involvement towards job and thus creating a motivated workforce – that will
work together to achieve the common goals of the organization. Highly engaged
workforce will definitely make an organization more successful in terms of financial
& nonfinancial parameters.
4. The test of association led the researcher to conclude that age, sex, civil status and
length of service are not significantly related to procedural justice. However, age, sex,
civil status and length of service are highly associated with distributive justice.
Moreover, in terms of interactional justice, age and civil status were found to be
significantly associated. Whereas, length of service is just simply associated with
interactional justice. Further, no association was established between sex and
interactional justice.
5. The test of significant association between demographic profile and employee
engagement resulted that age, sex and length of service are highly associated.
However, association between civil status and employee engagement tend to be not
significant.
6. Regression analysis preceded to the conclusion that procedural justice and distributive
justice significantly affect employee engagement and not interactional justice.

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the conclusions, the following are recommended:
1. Provincial Capitol should create a more attractive and conducive workplace in
reference to the demographic segmentation revealed in this study that would make
their personnel stay and contribute in the organization.
2. To further improve employees’ perception of procedural justice, it is a must that all
procedures and processes should treat all parties consistently and is free from bias.
Supervisors must also use accurate information and take into account all point of
views before rendering decisions.
3. To address issues on distributive justice, the organizations should provide equal
distributive justice by educating, communicating, and enacting fair employment
practices with the organization. Further, the concept of justice in time can also be
applied in organizations when establishing work hour schedule of employees, and
giving tasks, projects and deadlines, so that workers feel relaxed, unstressed and
become more productive during official office hours.
4. In terms of interactional justice, establishing standards of conduct is critical to
ensuring that high level of respect is shown to employees and to ensure the
organization is regarded as a fair and safe workplace. Moreover, managers should be
responsible to create a positive, productive work environment. This requires
interacting in an honest, fair, and respectful way with employees. When managers
effectively exercise interactional justice, they are open, consistent, and fair to their
employees.
5. Since organizational justice, specifically procedural and distributive justice, affects
engagement, changes in outcome allocations, company procedures and interpersonal
treatment that make employees feel that they are being treated more fairly are
suggested towards improving employee engagement.
6. Leaders should begin conversations in their own organizations in pushing to learn
which drivers they can adjust. In this case organizational justice- procedural,
distributive and interactional were tested.
7. Future research on the topic certainly merits increased attention. Further, other
variables such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and trust towards
management can become a separate subject for in-depth research and review.
References
Abasi, E., Mohammadipour, R., & Aidi, M. (2014). An Investigation of the Impact of
Organizational Justice Dimensions on Job Satisfaction ( Case Study : An Iranian
Bank ). Universal Journal of Management, 2(3), 132–137.
Agarwal, U. A. (2014). Linking Justice, Trust and Innovative Work Behaviour to Work
Engagement. Personnel Review, 43(1), 41–73.
Akaranga, S. (2015), Some Aspects of Indigenous Moral Values and Economic Impact
in the Philippines. Journal of History, 25(1), 146-153.
Albrecht, S. (2016). Handbook of Employee Engagement. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Allen, J. A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2018). Manager-Led Group Meetings: A Context for
Promoting Employee Engagement. Group & Organization Management, 38(5),
543–569.
Alvi, A. K., & Abbasi, A. S. (2016). Impact of Organizational Justice on Employee

Engagement in Banking Sector of Pakistan. Middle-East Journal of Scientific
Research, 12(5), 643–649.
Akoh, A. & Amah, E. (2015). Interactional Justice and Employees’ Commitment to

Supervisor in Nigerian Health Sector. International Journal of Innovation and
Economic Development, 2 (5), 7-17.
Ansari, N., Moazzam , A., Jabeen, N., & Salman, Y. (2016). Gender and Perceptions of
Organizational Justice: A Study of University of the Punjab. Pakistan Journal of
Women’s Studies: Alam-e-Niswan , 23 (1), 45-63.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2016). Trust as a Mediator of the Relationship
between Organizational Justice and Work Outcomes : Test of a Social Exchange
Model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267–285.
Bakker, A. B. (2015). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The Meaning, Antecedents and
Outcomes of Employee Engagement: A Narrative Synthesis. International Journal
of Management Reviews, 19, 31–53.
Baldwin, S. (2016). Organisational Justice. Institute for Employment Studies.
Barrett-Howard, E., & Tyler, T. R. (2017). Procedural Justice as a Criterion in Allocation

Decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 296–304.
Biswas, S., Varma, A., & Ramaswami, A. (2018). Linking Distributive and Procedural
Justice to Employee Engagement through Social Exchange: A Field Study in India.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(8), 1570–1587.
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z.
X., Leung k., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., Shapiro, D. (2014).
Culture and Procedural Justice: The Influence of Power Distance on Reactions to
Voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4), 300–315.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Lim, A. S. (2018). Manager Trustworthiness or Interactional Justice ?

Predicting Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3),
453–467.
Colquitt, J. (2012). Organizational Justice. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational

Psychology, 1, 526–547.
Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2016). Justice in Teams: Antecedents and
Consequences of Procedural Justice Climate. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 83–109.
Colquitt, J., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2015). Justice
at the Millennium : A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice
Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). Business Research Methods (12th ed.). New
York, NY.: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Cropanzano, R. (2016). Progress in Organizational Justice: Tunneling Through the Maze.

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 317–372.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C., J & Schminke, M. (2017). Three roads to
organizational justice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
20, 1–113.
Cropanzano, R., & Schminke, M. (2017). Using Social Justice to Build Effective Work
Groups. In Groups at Work: Theory and Research (pp. 143–171).
Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z

begins. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-
millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/.
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2014). The Meanings and
Purpose of Employee Voice. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 15(6), 1149-1170.
Fischer, R., Abubakar, A., & Nyaboke Arasa, J. (2014). Organizational Justice and
Mental Health: A Multi-Level Test of Justice Interactions. International Journal of
Psychology, 49(2), 108–114.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (2015). Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on
Reactions to Pay Rise Decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115–
130.
Gaudet, M. C., Tremblay, M., & Doucet, O. (2014). Exploring the black box of the
contingent reward leadership-performance relationship: The role of the perceived
justice and emotional exhaustion. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 23 (6), 897 -914.
Ghosh, P., Rai, A., & Sinha, A. (2014). Organizational Justice and Employee
Engagement: Exploring the Linkage in Public Sector Banks in India. Personnel
Review, 43(4), 628–652.
Green, J. (2014). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Journal of

Management, 16(2), 399–432.
Griffin, R. W. & Moorhead, G. (2016). Human behavior in organization (2ns ed.). pp.
477-478. Cengage Learning Asia Ptd. Ltd.
Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2014). Performance Management and Employee

Engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 123–136.
Gupta, V., & Kumar, S. (2015). Impact of Performance Appraisal Justice on Employee
Engagement: A Study of Indian Professionals. Employee Relations, 35(1), 61–78.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2017). Business- unit-level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.
He, H., Zhu, W., & Zheng, X. (2016). Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement:
Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality. Journal of
Business Ethics, 1–15.
Jawahar, I. M. (2017). The Influence of Perceptions of Fairness on Performance

Appraisal Reactions. Journal of Labor Research, 28(4), 735–744.
Jovilan, J. (2018). In numbers: What you need to know about the Philippine labor sector.
Rappler. Published April 30, 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/201448-facts-labor-sector-philippines.
Kuipers, E., Garety, P., Fowler D., Freeman. D., Bebbington, P., & Dunn, G. (2014). A
randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy and family intervention
for the prevention of relapse and reduction of symptoms in psychosis. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 192(1), 412‐23.
Kulik, C.T., Lind, E.A., & Ambrose, M.L. (2016). Understanding gender differences in
distributive and procedural justice Social Justice Research Journal, 9 (4), 351–369.
Latham, G. P., Almost, J., Mann, S., & Moore, C. (2015). New Developments in
Performance Management. Organizational Dynamics, 34(1), 77–87.
Ledimo, O. & Hlongwane, V.C. (2014). The role of organisational justice on employee
engagement within a public service organization. La Pensee Multidisciplinary
Journal, 76 (11), 1-13.
Lemons, M. A., & Jones, C. A. (2017). Procedural Justice in Promotion Decisions: Using
Perceptions of Fairness to Build Employee Commitment. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 16(4), 268–281.
Leventhal, G. S. (2014). What Should be Done With Equity Theory? New Approaches
to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships. Social Exchange: Advances in
Theory and Research, 27–55.
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (2017). Voice, Control, and Procedural Justice:
Instrumental and Noninstrumental Concerns in Fairness Judgments. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 952–959.
Loi, R., Lam, L. W., & Chan, K. W. (2018). Coping with Job Insecurity : The Role of
Procedural Justice , Ethical Leadership and Power Distance Orientation. Journal of
Business Ethics, 108, 361–372.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2017). The Meaning of Employee

Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3–30.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2014). The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at
work. Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (2015). Research Notes. Distributive and Procedural
Justice As Predictors of Satisfaction with Personal and Organizational Outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 626–637.
Mishra, A. K., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2016). Explaining how survivors respond to

downsizing: The roles of trust, empowerment, justice, and work redesign. Academy
of management Review, 23(3), 567-588.
Moorman, R. H. (2016). Relationship Between Organizational Justice and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors : Do Fairness Perceptions Influence
Employee Citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845–855.
Muzumdar, P. (2018). Influence of Interactional Justice on the Turnover Behavioral

Decision in an Organization. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 5, 34–41.
Nelson, D.L. and Simmons, B.L. (2015). Health psychology and work stress: a more
positive approach. Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 97-119.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a Mediator of the Relationship

Between Methods of Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.
Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527–556.
Nolledo, J. N. & Nolledo, M. S. (2015). The 1991 local government code. Mandaluyong
City.
Otto, K., & Mamatoglu, N. (2015). Why Does Interactional Justice Promote
Organizational Loyalty , Job Performance , and Prevent Mental Impairment ? The
Role of Social Support and Social Stressors. The Journal of Psychology, 149(2),
193–218.
Ozer, O., Ugurluoglu, O., & Saygili, M. (2017). Effect of Organizational Justice on Work
Engagement in Healthcare Sector of Turkey. Journal of Health Management, 19(1),
1–11.
Rees, C., Alfes, K., & Gatenby, M. (2015). Employee Voice and Engagement:
Connections and Consequences. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 24(14), 2780–2798.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2015). Job Engagement: Antecedents and
Effects on Job Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635.
Richman, A. (2016). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?.
Workspan, 49 (1), 36-39.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2016). The Drivers of Employee

Engagement. Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton.
Roch, S., & Shanock, L. (2016). Organizational justice in an exchange framework:

Clarifying organizational justice distinctions. Journal of Management, 32, 299–322
Rothmann, S., & Rothmann Jr, S. (2018). Factors Associated with Employee
Engagement in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1–12.
Saks, A. M. (2014). Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement. Journal

Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What Do We Really Know About Employee
Engagement? Human Ressource Development Quartely, 25(2), 155–182.
Saratun, M. (2016). Performance Management to Enhance Employee Engagement for

Corporate Sustainability. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 8(1), 84–
102.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2015). Research Methods for Business Students
(6th ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson Education Ltd.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job Demands , Job Resources , and their
Relationship with Burnout and Engagement : A Multi-Sample Study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315.
Scott, B. A., Garza, A. S., Conlon, D. E., & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Why Do Managers Act
Fairly in the First Place? A Daily Investigation of Hot and Cold Motives and
Discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1571–1591.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2015). Research Methods for Business (7th ed.). West Sussex,
UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sharma, S. & Gangwani, S. (2017). The Impact of Demographic Variables on Employee

Engagement in Public and Private Service Sector in India. International Journal of
Research in Economics & Social Sciences, 7(5), 299-313.
Sheppard, B. H. & Lewicki, R. J. (2014). Issues in organization and management series.

Organizational justice: The search for fairness in the workplace. New York, NY,
US: Lexington Books/Macmillan.
Shukla, S., Adhikari, B. & Singh, V. (2015). Employee Engagement - Role of

Demographic Variables and Personality Factors. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/32766223/Employee_Engagement_Role_of_Demograp
hic_Variables_and_Personality_Factors.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (2017). Retaliation in the Workplace : The Roles of
Distributive , Procedural , and Interactional Justice. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82(3), 434–443.
Subong, P. & Beldia, M. (2015). Statistics for Research: Applications in Research, Thesis
and Dissertation Writing, and Statistical Data Management Using SPSS Software.
Rex Bookstore.
Summereder, S., Streicher, B., & Batinic, B. (2014). Voice or Consistency? What You
Perceive as Procedurally Fair Depends on Your Level of Power Distance. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(2), 192–212.
Taamneh, A. (2015). The Impact of Practicing Interactional Justice on Employees

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) in the Jordanian Ministry of Justice.
European Journal of Business and Management, 7(8). 170-175.
Tenhiala, A., Linna, A., Bonsdorff, M., Pentti, J., Vahtera, J., Kivimaki, M. & Elovainio,
M. (2015). Organizational justice, sickness absence and employee age. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 28(7/8), 805-825.
Thurston Jr, P. W., & McNall, L. (2016). Justice Perceptions of Performance Appraisal
Practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 201–228.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2017). The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice,
Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 7(4), 349–361.
Usmani, S., & Jamal, S. (2017). Impact of Distributive Justice , Procedural Justice ,
Interactional Justice , Temporal Justice , Spatial Justice on Job Satisfaction of
Banking Employees. Review of Intergrative Business and Economics Research,
2(1), 351–383.
Van Den Bos, K., Vermut, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2016). The Consistency Rule and the
Voice Effect: The Influence of Expectations on Procedural Fairness Judgements and
Performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(3), 411–428.
Vuuren, H. J., Van, Dhurup, M., & Joubert, P. (2016). Justice in the Workplace: The
Influence of Procedural, Distributive and Interactional Justice on Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour Among Employees in the Police Service. International
Journal of Economics and Finance Studies, 8(1), 177–191.
Yoerger, M., Crowe, J., & Allen, J. A. (2015). Participate or Else!: The Effect of
Participation in Decision-Making in Meetings on Employee Engagement.
Psychology Faculty Publications, (120), 65–80.

Sample Paper (Justice and Engagment)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Paper (Justice and Engagment)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Paper (Justice and Engagment)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 1

Employee engagement is increasingly drawing a lot of interest among

in the organizational development space forming a fundamental constituent for

face of organizational, societal, and political change is a core question of public

The concept of employee engagement represents a positive psychological experience

satisfaction, organizational commitment, lower intention to quit and organizational

citizenship behavior. Engagement is important to job performance. Employees who are

high in engagement contribute to their organizations with higher levels of task

performance and organizational citizenship behavior which results in competitive

reviewed journals to bring coherence to the diffuse body of literature on engagement.

The significance of fairness as an essential subject in organizations has received

widespread recognition (Green, 2014). He further viewed organizational justice as an

outcome variables. Organizational justice arose in an effort to describe the role of

employee job performance may increase or decrease in relation to perceptions of

to the organization, employers compensate them through appropriate rewards and

recognition. In this context, employees’ opinion about equity or inequity is based on

supervisors (Moorman, 2016).

Findings of a study carried out in public service organization to explore the

relationship between organizational justice and the levels of employee engagement

established that there is a positive correlation between organizational justice dimensions

and work engagement dimensions of vigour, dedication and absorption. Both

performance, organizational commitment, organizational trust, retention, and employee

wellness (Ledimo & Hlongwane, 2014).

published studies on employee engagement as it relates to organizational justice in the

of themselves through greater levels of engagement.

concerning local government and administration on matters such as powers, functions,

excludable.” However, recent reforms in public management practice and discipline

well as public financing, attempting to provide a uniform provision of service through

centralized control, utilizing standardized employment practices, and legitimated

through democratic accountability (Green, 2014).

An organization, whether public or private, is a goal-directed social entity with

deliberate processes and systems. In other words, an organization is a collection of

should create a functional body or strengthen the existing workforce. Hence,

engagement is important to harness organization members’ selves to their work roles, to

Nelson and Simmons (2015) view employee engagement as a situation when

of their work. Richman (2016) defines engagement as the emotional/intellectual

commitment of an employee to the organization. Researchers on burnout (Harter,

(2017), engagement is characterized by energy, involvement and efficacy, the direct

organizational conditions). Albrecht (2016) has coined employee engagement as “a

positive work-related psychological state characterized by a genuine willingness to

contribute to organizational success”.

established constructs like organization commitment and organization citizenship

and consequences. This could be because the underlying psychological conditions

engagement can be considered in two different constructs: work and organizational

decades. Research on justice previously focused on fair outcomes as an aspect of

organizational fairness known as distributive justice. However, more recent studies

Konovsky, 2015; Tyler & Blader, 2017).

important construct in organizations (Cropanzano, 2016) and has a positive impact on

A study carried out in India involving employees in public sector organizations

established that procedural justice is associated with job satisfaction, turnover

that organizational commitment and employee engagement constructs are related

justice will be associated with employee engagement. An interesting research finding

2016) where the conduct of the study contributed.

In their observation of a courtroom setting Thibaut and Walker (as cited in

bias-suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicality. Colquitt,

favorable justice climate within teams, leaders in organizations should provide

2017; Brockner, Ackerman, Greenberg, Gelfand, Francesco, Chen, Leung, Bierbrauer,

of an employee’s dissatisfaction in regards to a certain issue with management or

speaking out during a grievance handling procedure, collective organization expressed

through collective bargaining, contribution to management decision-making which is