alexa Effect of Organizational Justice on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Study of Health Sector of Pakistan | Open Access Journals
ISSN: 2315-7844
Review of Public Administration and Management
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Effect of Organizational Justice on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Study of Health Sector of Pakistan

Nadir Ali*

Institute of Business and Management University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

*Corresponding Author:
Nadir Ali
Institute of Business and Management
University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Tel: +92 42 9902949
E-mail: [email protected]

Received date: June 03, 2016, Accepted date: December 28, 2016, Published date: December 30, 2016

Citation: Ali N (2016) Effect of Organizational Justice on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Study of Health Sector of Pakistan. Review Pub Administration Manag 4:198. doi:10.4172/2315-7844.1000198

Copyright: © 2016 Ali N. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the creative commons attribution license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Review of Public Administration and Management

Abstract

Work related behaviors and attitudes are affected by organizational citizenship behavior and organizational justice. These two play a vital role in the effective working of an organization. No effective study is conducted on the relationship of organization justice and organizational citizenship behavior in the developing and under developed countries. This study encompasses the connection between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior in public hospitals among young doctors. Causal relationship between the two is analyzed. It also investigated the effect of organizational justice upon organizational citizenship behavior. Data was collected from two hundred doctors of different public sector hospitals. Cross sectional analysis was performed. It was observed that there is a significant relationship between the two factors. It also showed that organizational citizenship behavior is affected directly and indirectly by the organizational justice factors’ like procedural justice, distributive justice and interactional justice.

Keywords

Organizational justice; Procedural justice; Distributive justice; Interactional justice; Organizational citizenship behavior; Altruism; Courtesy

Introduction

YDA (Young Doctors Association) observed complete strike and boycotted their services in all hospitals on 25-April-2016 with practical shutdown of Lahore General Hospital on the pretext of lack of security in all hospitals in the province due to this tens of thousands of patients have been deprived of their basic right to healthcare in Punjab’s Hospitals. The young doctors’ strike in Lahore General Hospital (LGH), the Pakistan’s biggest Neurosciences institute, has severely affected the patients as work was stopped in emergency ward, outdoor and indoor wards thus leaving critical patients to suffer from the ailments and injuries. Thousands of patients especially with neurological diseases and injuries have been affected in LGH alone. A source in LGH informed that the hospital’s emergency was still not functioning even after the lapse of four days. “The young doctors have boycotted services and crippled normal work” [1].

The Young Doctors Association (YDA), Punjab, has once again exposed its destructive self as it launched a protest movement with a virtual closure of provincial metropolis on Tuesday 31st-March-2015 after the Punjab government ignored their warning for not implementing the service structure for doctors in the province. The YDA activists held protests in all districts of Punjab. The young doctors of Mayo Hospital, De’ Montmorency/Punjab Dental Hospital and Sir Ganga Ram Hospital blocked The Mall by holding protest demonstration at Chairing Cross in front of Punjab Assembly, young doctors of Services Hospital and Punjab Institute of Cardiology blocked Jail Road, young doctors from Children’s Hospital and Lahore General Hospital blocked Ferozepur Road, while young doctors from Shaikh Zayed Hospital and Jinnah Hospital staged a sit-in on Canal Road, which virtually crippled the traffic flow and caused tremendous problems for the commuters on the roads. The young doctors’ strike caused a great deal of problems for the patients in hospitals as OPDs remained shut and minor operations were postponed. The poor patients, who had come from far-off districts, were the worst affected as they had incurred a lot of expenses only to get disappointment over denial of treatment in public sector hospitals of Lahore. 01 April 2015 (The News).

PIMS young doctors Islamabad

The young doctors of Pakistan institute of medical sciences (PIMS) postponed their plan to hold a strike after the hospital administration met their demands of establishing permanent police check post and an alarm system at the hospital for the security of doctors and paramedical staff (The Nations).

Young doctors, under the banner of young Doctors association (YDA) Punjab, continued their strike in outdoor patient departments (OPDs), which entered its 13th consecutive day on Monday, 28 Jan 2013 (Pakistan Today).

Doctors of three teaching hospitals in Peshawar have gone on strike on the call of Provincial Doctors Association Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. According to Doctors association, Lady Reading Hospital, Khyber Teaching Hospital, and Hayatabad Medical Complex have boycotted outpatient departments and wards and patients are only being treated in emergency. The strike would be continued until their demands regarding service structure and other matters are met. Otherwise the strike would be scattered to other districts of the province respectively, Doctor Association added. (The Tribune) Young Doctors Strike in Lahore: 34 protesting young doctors have been put behind lockup bars for at least one month.

All the news grabbed our attention towards itself, after doing a profuse search and interrogation we came to know the reason behind all these strikes. We found that Organizational Conflict is main reason behind this. “Organizational conflict can be defined as a disagreement between or within groups in an organization”. Conflict has not favorite outcomes, so it is needed to identify the factors to decrease it. Many studies find that Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior are very important to remove conflict among employees. So, now we will analyze the impact of Organizational justice on Organizational Citizenship behavior.

Organizational justice primarily focuses on the fairness at workplace and puts stronger impact on different attitudes of the employees like turnover intentions, absenteeism, role breadth, job satisfaction, job performance, leader-member exchange, trust, leadership and organizational commitment. There are three main dimensions of organizational justice:

• Procedural justice

• Distributive justice

• Interactional justice

Organizational justice can be defined as the employees’ perception to what extent they are treated fairly and honestly. An organization’s high performance can only be possible if organization provides its employees with satisfied workplace, fair treatment and appraisal for their effective work. The organization needs to be fair in its system regarding distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. When employees feel that they are treated fairly by the organization in every aspect, they are inclined to show more positive attitude and behaviors like job satisfaction.

Over a decade and a half has passed, since Dennis Organ et al. [2,3] first coined the term “organizational citizenship behavior” (OCBs). Organ (1988: 4) defined organizational citizenship behaviors as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. By discretionary, we mean that the behavior which is not an enforceable requirement of org. or the matter of Personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable”.

OCB may not always be directed and formally or formally recognized and rewarded by the company through salary increments or promotions for example, though of course OCB may be reflected in favourable supervisor and co-worker ratings, or better performance appraisals. Finally, and critically, “OCB must promote the effective functioning of the organization”

The relationship between organizational justice and OCB has been identified as a plausible explanation for regulating the impact of organizational Justice on OCB.

Literature Review

Organizational justice

The term organizational justice basically refers “to the extent to which employee perceives workplace procedure, interactions and outcomes to be fair in nature” [4]. Organizational justice can also be known as the perceptions of people about fairness in organizations [5,6]. Organizational justice has a great impact on people’s attitude, behaviors and consequently their performances and the success of organization [5,6]. More specifically, [4] noted that “these perceptions can influence attitudes and behaviors for good or poor, consequently reflecting a positive or negative impact on employee’s performance and organizational outcomes”.

Now days, organizational justice concept and attitude towards to worker has had a new meaning and it is more vital and central [7]. First organizational justice concept was announced as a reward and punishment in an organization. Then applying the processes and rule equally were added. And lastly human relations and interactions were added and then that was come out. With the result of research, organizational justice can be defined as awards and punishments, rules, processes, communication and interactions was applied equally or not. Greenberg analyzed organizational justice dimension in fairness of gains, processes, people relations. Family, schools, work places and social environment are the places where people in search of justice. Starting from the research organizational justice can be raised if they are behaved fairly and their organizational dependency and productivity can be raised and by the way job satisfaction trust to management and their job request and performance can be raised too [8,9].

According to a historical synopsis of the field organizational justice focuses on two dimensions. First was distributive justice tradition and second was procedural justice. Distributive justice was in terms of equity theory and procedural justice in terms of foundation of process. This, two dimensions give five standard refrains in current organizational justice; 1) attempt to distinguish procedural justice and distributive justice basically, 2) the development of new conceptual advances, 3) interpersonal factors of procedural justice judgments, 4) new directions in test of equity theory, and 5) justice-based explanations to many different organizational marvels. And further made an appeal for future work which improves PJ research methodology with respect to scope, setting and scaling [10].

Organizational justice leads to employee’s high obligations and over the job duties. Many researchers say that organizational justice is one of the factors that motivates employees to do their jobs above his duties. Organizational citizenship behavior is very important in hospitals because patients need special care and attention from doctors and nurses and for this they must be having high morale and determination [11-13].

If justice perception of employees is positive, the loyalty to the organization will increase and their performance will rise and so the efficiency of the organization. The negative justice perceptions reduce the loyalty and performance along with negative behaviors towards their coworkers and managers. Employees get attitudes through their perceptions and transform these attitudes to practices. The individual perceiving the organizational justice gives up organizational citizenship behavior because of the belief that he can be deprived of the formal rewards as the result of his formal job description. The negative emotions of organizational members toward procedural justice and distributive justice will give rise to absenteeism, low performance, deviance, low loyalty and citizenship behaviors. There is a positive relationship between organizational justice and Organizational citizenship behavior [14].

It is investigated in professed organizational justice got dominant importance in business organizations framework by management researchers and psychologist for the last more than 35 years. By seeing basic recognized impact frequent employee’s behavior and attitudes for example job satisfaction, extra-role performance, organizational commitment, job performance, and motivation, trust and turnover intentions. According to a deep analysis of responses from 463 faculty members exposed that distributive and procedural justice had weighty positive impact on organizational commitment of junior faculty whereas senior faculty experienced better commitment on the establishment of distributive justice only [15].

During the 1970s, researchers began an empirical examination of procedural justice in organizations. As employees are interested in procedural justice and they try to understand the procedures ending up the decisions made. According to Folger and Konovsky procedural justice is the perception of the processes which are used to determine the decisions. In short, it is about the perceptions of justice related with the decision making processes. Procedural justice includes the following key factors determined by a research of Leventhal and others in 1980; requires consistency among individuals in a certain period of time includes:

• Behaviors without prejudice,

• Uses true and relevant information,

• Permits corrective actions in case of conflicts among parties,

• Consistent with ethical standards and

• Considers the opinions of dependent parties.

Organ refers this type of justice as the way in which an organization applies the relevant criteria to arrive at a decision [16]. A new type and form of justice is named interactional justice. The interactional justice, which is designed by Bies and Moag [17] and which is related with interpersonal interactions is a follow-up of procedural justice. According to Moorman [18] interactional justice is the interaction between the source of allocation and the people who will be affected by the allocation decisions; or is the method of telling how to do and what to do to the people in decision processes. Individuals pay attention to the treatments against them and explanations made during the practice of procedures rather than the procedures themselves. (Yunus Emre Yerle?kesi, The Effect of Employees' Perceptions of Organizational Justice on OCB, June 2011).

The nucleus of any correctional organization is its correctional staff. There are expected in-role behaviors and duties of the staff, but extrarole behaviors (referred to as organizational citizenship behavior) also are important for correctional organizations. However, there has been little research on correctional staff organizational citizenship behavior [19,20]. Based on social exchange theory, organizational justice should be important in shaping the organizational citizenship behavior of correctional staff. Distributive and procedural justices are two salient dimensions of organizational justice. Survey data from staff at a private prison indicated that procedural justice had a significant positive relationship with organizational citizenship behavior, but distributive justice had a non-significant association [21,22].

The employees who believed that they personally were treated fairly by their supervisors also reported that they were significantly more likely to exhibit citizenship behaviors. Employees who felt supported by their supervisors were more willing to perform citizenship activities is similar to that reported by Zhao, Peng and Chen.

The social exchange theory considers the interpersonal social relations as a kind of resource exchange [23].

Accordingly, the parties’ expectations for being rewarded such as being appreciated and respected play an important role in maintaining and initiating social relations. Individuals evaluate the justice of these changes based on the information they obtain through social interactions [24]. Procedural justice is defined as “the fairness of the decision processes that leads to the outcomes and involves whether the decision procedures, process control and dispute settlement mechanism is fair, open, consistent, reasonable or not, and whether the employees are provided any ways to participate in decision making or not” [25].

Distributive Justice concerns with appropriateness of outcomes [26]. As argued by Ibragimova, perceptions of organizational justice are important part of knowledge sharing environment. Employees with positive distributive justice perceptions are similar to collect and donate knowledge. A number of benefits such as trust, commitment and more helpful citizenship behaviors resulted from the better implementations of justice in the organizations.

Interactional justice is defined as the quality of interpersonal treatment received by those working in an organization” [27]. It is argued that organizations need to organizational justice because improvement in organizational justice perceptions may lead to increased organizational citizenship behavior [28].

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organizational conflict can arise in different types like intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup and inter-organizational conflicts. Negative outcomes are likely to be generated by Conflict, so it must be decreased. Few studies find that organizational citizenship behavior can be a main factor to reduce it. Organizational citizenship behavior is considered very crucial for organization to survive [29].

An inclusive study about organizational citizenship behavior and understanding of job performance has given in this article. According to this article OCB is positioned as the organizational equivalent of citizen responsibilities, of which there are three categories: obedience, loyalty and political participation [30].

Organs [3] indicate that organizational citizenship behavior refers to fair and voluntary actions such as assist colleagues on working issues, polite behavior with personnel and competently described the organization to outside people which will improve the effectiveness of the organization. According to researches, the importance of organizational citizenship behavior and the relationship of this behavior with success, productivity and organizational effectiveness are considerable [31]. Many researchers have focused on identifying the preconditions for organizational citizenship behavior. In this regard, many variables have been identified such as job satisfaction, organizational justice, personality, leadership, role perceptions, organizational commitment and age of workers.

Research show that employee perceptions of fairness in the workplace are related with a positive view of organizational citizenship behavior. Organ said that employee perceptions of justice manifested by the increase or decrease of organizational citizenship behavior. Therefore, decreasing the organizational citizenship behavior can be one answer to not existing of justice in organization.

Organ 1990 states that justice perceptions have important roles to develop organizational citizenship behaviors. Organ defines the organizational citizenship behaviors as “the voluntary individual action which is not defined clearly in the formal reward and punishment system of the organization but supporting the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization as whole.” By the help of distributive and procedural justice, it is easy to improve the organizational citizenship behavior among the employees who will feel the organization more supportive. The mostly emphasized cognitive factor which stimulates the OCB is the justice perception of employees.

Numerous researchers of OCB have emphasized to study the OCB in context of organization and found it as an important component in the success of a business. Furthermore, empirical evidences demonstrated that it has positive impact on performance and efficacy of the organization. Since Organ defines OCB comprehensively a group of positive behaviors and gestures of employees and workers towards the welfare of their organization without any reward. It involves extra role-behaviors which are not formally rewarded by organizations and against this behavior there is no compensation. OCB showed behaviors performed by employees with their own consent and will for the well-being for their organizations it at last positively affects the performance of the organization [29].

Organizational citizenship behavior has been viewed as pro-motive behaviors that demonstrate the actor's desire to maintain a relationship with the target and contribute to the target's success. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is referred to as a set of discretionary workplace behaviors that exceed one's basic job requirements. They are often described as behaviors that go beyond the call of duty. This condition could be leaded to remove conflict among employees [7].

Organizational citizenship behavior is a useful term to describe the voluntary employees’ behaviors which are not performance of their official responsibility [3,4]. The notion of organizational citizenship behavior is resulted from Kats and Kahn’ origin of extra-role behavior was first come into view in the literature in a studies by Organ and his coworkers [3,4]. According to Organ’s [3] classifications organizational citizenship behavior signifies “individual behavior that is optional, not directly or clearly documented by the formal reward system, and in the collectively endorses the efficient and effective functioning of organization”.

Along with definition, scholars have also developed a diversity of classifications to differentiate citizenship behaviors. For example, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach illustrious different types of OCB. A special classification presented by William and Anderson, which differentiate behaviors direct towards individuals (OCBI) and behaviors directed towards organizations, (OCBO). Although these classifications have used by many researchers, one of the most common definition is presented by Organ [3] who detached five surfaces of OCB including altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue and sportsmanship. According to the Organ and Ryan [3], there is a strong relationship between the organizational satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. These strong relationships indicate that employee’s commitment become increases with the increases in their job satisfaction and their behavior depends upon the behavior of the authority of the organization. If they treat their employees fairly and with respect, then they can get commitment and OCB in returns from their employees. It is also defined as the positive behavior from employee’s side. They have found that procedural justice has the significant impact on developing organizational citizenship in the organizations. Because if the authorities give the rights to the employees to limited decision making in their job tasks and appreciate them to give their opinions in organizational procedures, then they will feel satisfaction as they are the important part of the organization and their opinion and participation keeps value for the organization [32].

Organizational citizenship behavior is also very important for healthcare institutions and healthcare workers and this importance has certain reasons. It is not always possible to recover poor quality in health services. Patients need special care and positive behaviors of healthcare workers more. Moreover, today’s healthcare institutions are exposed to competitive conditions, just like in other sectors [22].

According to Isen and Baron, people like to help each other when they are in positive mood. Positive moods are said to be linked with Altruism which is a component of OCB. Positive mood leads to extra role behaviors like helping each other, and making constructive propositions and these behaviors are considered as the parts of organizational citizenship behavior.

There are five dimensions to OCB which are Altruism, civic-virtue, conscientiousness, sportsmanship and courtesy. Altruism is a willingness to help or helping behavior of an employee toward its fellow employee.

According to Organ [3] courtesy includes all those gestures which help someone preventing a problem. Sportsmanship means avoid displaying negative behavior like complaining all time and repeating mistakes.

Relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

In the literature, there are many studies which focus on the relationship between the perception of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. These studies suggest that employees will show extra-role behavior if they believe that actions and practices in the organization are honest and fair. In this respect, Moorman [13] found that the perception of justice is an important indicator in the development of citizenship behavior in the study he conducted with 270 employees of two medium scale enterprises. Arslan and Pekdemir conducted a study with 233 blue-collar workers serving at different departments of a production company and found a significant relationship between the perception of organizational justice of workers and the organizational citizenship behavior they exhibit, and determined that distributive and interpersonal justice dimensions are influential in this significant relationship. Chegini [25] evaluated the relationship between the dimensions of justice and organizational citizenship behavior on the basis of five hypotheses and revealed as a result of correlation analysis that all dimensions of justice are correlated with the organizational citizenship behavior. In the study conducted by Poyraz et al. [31] on workers of 4- and 5-star thermal hotels at the city center of Afyonkarahisar, they concluded that interactional justice is more influential on organizational citizenship behavior than the distributive and procedural justice. Buluc [23] found a positive and significant relationship between perception of justice of academic personnel and their organizational citizenship behavior.

In the literature, there are also studies which examine the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior from the perspective of health workers. In this context, Gilaninia and Abdesonboli included in their study 314 people who serve at state hospitals in Rasht, Iran. As a result, a significant relationship was found between all dimensions of justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Similarly, in the study conducted by Bahrami et al. on 100 people who work at an educational hospital in Iran, a positive and significant relationship was found between all dimensions of organizational justice and conscientiousness, civic virtue, Altruism and sportsmanship behaviors. Chang [24] focused on intermediary role of organizational justice between organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior and included the nurses of a major hospital in Taiwan in his study. As a result of this study, the researcher found that perception of justice of nurses play an intermediary role between organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of organizational justice perceptions about the organizational citizenship behavior by public sector employees. Organizational justice includes the perceptions of employees related to the rewards, results, decision making and participation in decision processes. Organizational citizenship behaviors, on the other side, are the behaviors which are mostly dependent on personal choices, not written in job descriptions, not rewarded when fulfilled, and not punished when not fulfilled. Organizational efficiency and effectiveness are directly linked with both of these organizational variables. The research was conducted with 83 employees who work for provincial directorate of land registry and Cadaster, provincial directorate of national education and provincial governorship services of Karaman [11].

The model of this research is shown in Figure 1. Basically, this research is on two areas which are organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. There are total five variables involves in this research, three independent variables and two are dependent variables. Procedural justice, Distributive justice and Interactional justice are the variables of OJ and Altruism and Courtesy are the variables of OCB.

Research Hypothesis

H1: Procedural justice has significant impact on altruism.

H2: Distributive justice has significant impact on altruism.

H3: Interactional justice has significant impact on altruism.

H4: Procedural justice has significant impact on courtesy.

H5: Distributive justice has significant impact on courtesy.

H6: Interactional justice has significant impact on courtesy.

Methodology

The study is conducted in order to determine the effect of organizational justice on organizational citizenship behavior among young doctors of public sector hospitals of Pakistan to test the impact of organizational justice (Procedural, Distributive and Interactional) on organizational citizenship behavior (Altruism and Courtesy).

As this research is primary so data was collected primarily, i.e. to get the forms filled by the young doctors of 5 main hospitals including Jinnah Hospital, Services Hospital, General Hospital, Mayo Hospital, Shalimar hospital and Fatima memorial hospital. These are major resources by which I will obtain data. Data was collected by quantitative analysis by filling questionnaires from almost 250 young doctors. A tool for gathering data is questionnaire and convenience sampling technique was used to data collection. Because of the availability of young doctors, time and financial constraints as well. Apart from basic demographic information, a 5-point Likert scale format was used, and the scores on the scale ranges from 1=Strongly Agree to 5=Strongly Disagree.

Organizational justice scale consists of three factors namely procedural justice, distributive justice and interactional justice which consisting of 14 items developed by Niehoff and Moorman [2]. The organizational Justice scale is graded between “1” (Strongly Agree) ad “5” (Strongly Disagree). In order to measure organizational citizenship behavior of young doctors measured with Podsakoff et al. organizational citizenship behavior questionnaire consisting of two factors namely Altruism and courtesy identified by Organ [3] containing 8 items and is graded between “1” (Strongly Agree) and “5” (Strongly Disagree). It was determined that validity and reliability of this scale is high and it can be successfully applied in studies to be conducted in Pakistan.

The overall reliability of Organizational Justice is 0.873 therefore Procedural Justice (5 items, reported reliability for 0.803), Distributive Justice (4 items, reported reliability for 0.896) and Interactional Justice (5 items, reported reliability for 0.864) which are greater than 0.07 it means the scale and data is reliable, it shows consistency. Similarly, the overall reliability of Organizational Citizenship Behavior is 0.855 therefore Altruism (4 items, reported reliability for 0.889) and Courtesy (4 items, reported reliability for 0.878) which are greater than 0.07, it means the scale is reliable. The overall reliability is 0.829 of 22 items, which show the scale and data is reliable and consistent for further study (Table 1).

  Number of Questions Cronbach’s Alpha
Organizational Justice 14 0.873
Procedural Justice 5 0.803
Distributive Justice 4 0.896
Interactional Justice 5 0.864
Organizational Citizenship Behavior 8 0.855
Altruism 4 0.889
Courtesy 4 0.878
Overall 22 0.829

Table 1: Findings on reliability of scales used.

Findings and Results

In this section, statistical analysis was done by using SPSS 20.0 (Statistical Software Packages), which includes the result of the descriptive analysis, frequency analysis, regression analysis and correlation analysis has been used to test the hypothesis. Data was presented in tables.

Age: In frequency analysis, there are total 250 respondents, whose age range is 25 to 35. All are 100% valid. Gender: Frequency table demonstrate the survey conducted includes 56.4% of the males and 43.6% of the females. Total 100% all are valid. Marital status: 47.6% of data collected by the respondents who are unmarried and 52.4% data collected by respondents who are married. Total 100% all are valid (Table 2).

  Frequency Percent Valid % Cumulative %
Age 25-35 250 100 100 100
Gender Male 141 56.4 56.4 56.4
Female 109 43.6 43.6 100
Total 250 100 100  
Marital status   Unmarried 119 47.6 47.6 47.6
Married 131 52.4 52.4 100
Total 250 100 100  

Table 2: Frequency of demographics.

The mean value of the PJ is 3.07, DJ is 4.13, IJ is 2.62, Altruism is 1.82 and Courtesy is 12.41. The standard deviation value of PJ is 0.60, DJ is 0.75, IJ is 0.76, Altruism is 0.72 and Courtesy is 2.25. The variance of PJ is 0.25, DJ is 0.56, IJ is 0.59, Altruism is 0.52 and Courtesy is 5.071. The Skewness of PJ is -0.043 and DJ is -1.174 which are less than 0. It means Skewness <0 is left Skewed Distribution; most values are concentrated on the right of the mean, with extreme values to the left. The Skewness of IJ is 0.330, Altruism is 1.390 and Courtesy is 0.446, which are greater than 0. It means Skewness >0 is right Skewed distribution; most values are concentrated on the left of the mean, with extreme values to the right. The value of Kurtosis of PJ is 1.423, DJ is 1.423 and Altruism is 2.540 which are positive so its mean that tails are heavier than normal distribution, so it is Lapto Kurtic. The value of Kurtosis of IJ is -0.153 and Courtesy is -0.137 which are negative so its mean that tails are lighter than normal distribution, so it Platy Kurtic (Table 3).

  N Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
PJ 250 3.0784 0.60088 0.361 -0.043 0.302
DJ 250 4.136 0.75217 0.566 -1.174 1.423
IJ 250 2.6272 0.76964   0.33 -0.153
Altruism 250 1.828 0.72493 0.526 1.39 2.54
Courtesy 250 12.416 2.25194 5.071 0.446 -0.137

Table 3: Descriptive.

Results of the correlation analysis, which was made to determine correlations among main variables of the study, are presented in Table 4. According to results of the analysis, strong and positive relations were identified between organizational justice and dimensions of organizational justice. Also, there are weak and negative, positive relations between the dimensions of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior (Table 4).

  PJ DJ IJ Altruism Courtesy
PJ Pearson Correlation 1 0.345** 0.303** 0.085 0.195**
DJ Pearson Correlation 0.345** 1 0.165** -0.123 0.024
IJ Pearson Correlation 0.303** 0.165** 1 0.066 0.0241**
Altruism Pearson Correlation 0.085 -0.123 0.066 1 0.337**
Courtesy Pearson Correlation 0.195** 0.024 0.241** 0.337** 1

Table 4: Correlations.

B Value: The change in the outcome associated with a unit change in the predictor. The b value tells us about the relationship between the outcome and each predictor. If the value is positive, then we can say that there is a positive relationship between the predictor and the outcome whereas a negative coefficient represents the negative relationship. In this model, there is a positive relationship between altruism and PJ (procedural justice) and also positive relationship between IJ (interactional justice) but negative relationship between altruism and DJ (distributive justice). Beta Value: The standardized beta value tells us the number of the standard deviation that the outcome will change as a result of one standard deviation change in the predictor. The beta values are all measured in standard deviation units and so are directly comparable. The standardized beta value of PJ is 0.129, DJ is -0.176 and IJ is 0.056. This tells that PJ has slightly more impact in this model. t value: t-test tells the contribution of independent variables in model. The significance related to t-test should be less the 0.05. In this model, the significance of PJ is grater then 0.05 so it has negative impact on altruism, it is insignificant. The significance of DJ is less than 0.05 so it has a positive impact on altruism, it is significant. The significance of IJ is greater than 0.05 so it is negative impact on altruism and it is highly insignificant (Table 5a).

Dependent Variable: Altruism

  B Beta t Sig.
Constant 1.914   6.225 0
PJ 0.155 0.129 1.862 0.064
DJ -0.17 -0.176 -2.638 0.009
IJ 0.053 0.056 0.852 0.395
  R R Square Durbin-Watson F
  0.190a 0.036 1.791 3.086

Table 5(a): Regression.

R: In the table, R are the values of the multiple correlation coefficient between the independent variables (predictors) and the dependent variable. The multiple correlation between the predictors (PJ, DJ and IJ) and the dependent variable (Altruism) is 0.190. R2: It is the coefficient of simple determination, and the percent of the variance in the dependent explained uniquely or jointly by the independents. It measures the level of variability in the outcome is accounted for by the predictors. In the table, the value is 0.36 which means that PJ, DJ and IJ accounts for 3.6% of the variation in the Altruism. Durbin Watson: is a test to see if the assumption of independent observations is met, this statistic tells us about whether the assumption of independent error is tenable. Its range is 1.5 to 2.5, the value closer to 2 is better, and in this data the value is 1.791 which is close to 2 so the assumption has almost certainly met. F-Test: It tells whether using the regression model is significantly better at predicting values of the outcome than using the mean. It tells P<0.001 whether results are significant or not. The Fvalue should be greater than 1. In this model, the F is 3.08 which is greater than 1, so it is low significant. We can interpret that final model significantly improves the ability to predict the outcome variable. P>0.001 so it is insignificant.

B Value: The change in the outcome associated with a unit change in the predictor. The b value tells us about the relationship between the outcome and each predictor. If the value is positive, then we can say that there is a positive relationship between the predictor and the outcome whereas a negative coefficient represents the negative relationship. In this model, there is a positive relationship between courtesy and PJ (procedural justice) and also positive relationship between IJ (interactional justice) but negative relationship between courtesy and DJ (distributive justice). Beta Value: The standardized beta value tells us the number of the standard deviation that the outcome will change as a result of one standard deviation change in the predictor. The beta values are all measured in standard deviation units and so are directly comparable. The standardized beta value of PJ is 0.155, DJ is -0.063 and IJ is 0.205. This tells that IJ has slightly more impact in this model. t value: t-test tells the contribution of independent variables in model. The significance related to t-test should be less the 0.05. In this model, the significance of PJ is less than 0.05 so it has positive impact on courtesy, it is significant. The significance of DJ is greater than 0.05 so it has a negative impact on courtesy, it is highly insignificant. The significance of IJ is less than 0.05 so it is positive impact on courtesy and it is highly significant (Table 5b).

Dependent Variable: Courtesy
(Constant) B Beta t Sig.
9.836   10.532 0
PJ 0.582 0.155 2.294 0.023
DJ -0.19 -0.063 -0.97 0.333
IJ 0.599 0.205 3.181 0.002
  R R Square Durbin-Watson F
  0.280a 0.078 1.326 6.961

Table 5(b): Regression.

R: In the table, R are the values of the multiple correlation coefficient between the independent variables (predictors) and the dependent variable. The multiple correlation between the predictors (PJ, DJ and IJ) and the dependent variable (courtesy) is 0.280. R2: It is the coefficient of simple determination, and the percent of the variance in the dependent explained uniquely or jointly by the independents. It measures the level of variability in the outcome is accounted for by the predictors. In the table, the value is 0.078 which means that PJ, DJ and IJ accounts for 7.8% of the variation in the Courtesy. Durbin Watson: is a test to see if the assumption of independent observations is met, this statistic tells us about whether the assumption of independent error is tenable. Its range is 1.5 to 2.5, the value closer to 2 is better, and in this data the value is 1.326 which is not close to 2 so the assumption has not certainly met. F-Test: It tells whether using the regression model is significantly better at predicting values of the outcome than using the mean. It tells P<0.001 whether results are significant or not. The Fvalue should be greater than 1. In this model, the F is 6.96 which is greater than 1, so it is low significant. We can interpret that final model significantly improves the ability to predict the outcome variable. P>0.001 so it is insignificant.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this study, key determinants of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior were studied. For OCB, only two determinants out of five were studied which are Altruism and courtesy because most importantly Altruism and courtesy are significantly involved in developing OCB and determinants of organizational justice were procedural justice, distributive justice and interactional justice. Many researched indicated that there were a positive and significant relationship between OJ and OCB. A research conducted in Malaysia indicated that unfair treatment in the terms of procedures and distribution of remunerations not only decrease job performance but also the degree of corporation among employees in an organization. In our study, it was found that all three components of OJ were not significantly positive impacting the two components of OCB.

• The findings from the study were that:

• Procedural justice has significant and positive impact on courtesy.

• Procedural justice has insignificant and negative impact on Altruism.

• Distributive justice has insignificant and negative impact on courtesy.

• Distributive justice has significant and positive impact on Altruism.

• Interactional justice has significant and positive impact on courtesy.

• Interactional justice has insignificant and negative impact on Altruism.

So, by analyzing the result we can say that the respondent believed that if they are involved to participate in organization decisions and they were treated fairly in terms of the work loads and remuneration then the organizational citizenship behavior of the employees can be improved.

As literature review in this research implies that there are many researchers who have done working on these concepts and these variables and results of the positive and negative relationships and significant impacts emphasize on the developing organizational justice to get OCB. For the first dimension of justice is procedural justice that is regarding to do fair treatment in terms of making decisions and make informed to all concerning people in the organization fairly. A just process is the practice in which applied consistently to all, free of bias, accurate representative to all stockholder. A critical expression from the literature is disclose that distributive justice is generally based on the equity principles, and based on the economic exchange or economic fluctuations. People in the organization feel that they are fairly treated if they get outcomes according to their contributions. But in majority stat-owned organizations doesn’t stress on rewarding that’s why it’s not an important feature, instead of if they emphasized on seniority. But after analyzing a huge research on distributive justice and organizational citizenship behavior, it has been seen that both are having strongly positive relationship.

Some examples in the organization are more reactive towards the interactional justice a dimension of OJ. For individual employees concerning, their politeness, sensitivity, dignity and respect which compromises interactional justice. it is more important dimension of interactional justice rather than distributive and procedural justice. It is a natural thing that when you treat someone with dignity and respect, you will find more attention of that person towards you. Same the case in the organization when authorities will treat its employees with dignity and respective way they will become more close and attach with their jobs, that leads to OCB.

Above discussion about independent variables of this study clearly guide that how OCB can develop by making sure about just practices in the organizations. And OCB shows in terms of Altruism and courtesy manners. These are two dependent variables also as well of this presenting study. According to research these two variables strongly relate to the OCB.

Limitations and Future Direction

During surveys it was found that many employees didn’t know the meaning of OJ and OCB. So in order to ensure transparency, preeminent exertions were made to make them understand the terms and then fill the Questionnaires.

The study was conducted in health sector of Lahore with only two dimensions of OCB and three dimensions of OJ. So, all other components of OCB and OJ must be explored in all other different sectors to analyze their influences and impacts.

Recommendations

While considering the above text and other researches regarding OJ and OCB following recommendations are:

In order to increase the sense of OCB among young doctors of public hospitals, the authorities must develop an environment of fair treatment.

The authorities must ensure that they are receiving all three forms of organizational justice (Procedural, Distributive and Interactional).

Many participants believe d that distributive justice was very low. So, it must be noted by hospital authorities to increase distributive justice with the proportion of work done by the employees like salary, bonus, promotions and other benefits.

Hospital authorities must also ensure equality and fairness in distributive justice.

Discrimination and biasness must be avoided in decision making processes to make the justice certain in procedures.

A nurturing and healthy environment must be provided at workplace to increase the sense of organizational citizenship behavior among all employees.

There must be a culture of mutual respect among the young doctors of public hospitals. So, the supervisors can treat their subordinates in a polite manner, with respect and dignity.

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Article Usage

  • Total views: 1740
  • [From(publication date):
    December-2016 - Nov 24, 2017]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 1476
  • PDF downloads : 264
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords