The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

PR
43,4

628
Received 21 August 2013
Revised 20 February 2014
Accepted 7 April 2014

Organizational justice and

employee engagement
Exploring the linkage in public sector
banks in India
Piyali Ghosh, Alka Rai and Apsha Sinha
School of Management Studies, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology,
Allahabad, India
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore whether perceptions of distributive, procedural
and interactional justice are related to employee engagement, as an extension of the
antecedents-consequences model of Saks (2006), and to examine the possibility of inter-relationships
between these three dimensions of justice.
Design/methodology/approach A survey of 210 employees of public sector banks in India
covered measures of job and organization engagement (OE) proposed by Saks (2006) and the scale
on distributive, procedural and interactional justice developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993).
The relationships between justice perceptions and engagement were analysed using correlations and
hierarchical regression analysis.
Findings Results show that distributive, procedural and interactional are inter-related with each
other. Further, distributive and interactional justice take precedence over procedural justice in
determining job engagement, while distributive justice plays the most important role in determining
OE, followed by procedural and interactional justice.
Practical implications By highlighting the inter-relationships among the three dimensions of
justice, this study offers useful insights into the underlying processes through which job and OE can
be improved through these inter-relationships. Findings also highlight the application of concepts like
relative deprivation in Indian public sector banks to increase the engagement levels of their employees.
Originality/value This paper adds to the very small number of studies that have investigated the
role of interactional justice in enhancing job and OEs. It has also established inter-relationships between
the three dimensions of organizational justice and their individual roles in determining job and OEs.
Keywords Quantitative, Employee engagement, Distributive justice, Interactional justice,
Job engagement, Procedural justice, Organizational engagement
Paper type Research paper

Personnel Review
Vol. 43 No. 4, 2014
pp. 628-652
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-08-2013-0148

Introduction
The issue of justice at workplace has etched a dominant place for itself in literature.
Several studies indicate that an increased sense of justice among employees can
have a positive impact on various aspects of organizational behaviour, such as work
satisfaction (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992; Bhupatkar, 2003; McCain et al., 2010),
organizational commitment (Folger and Konovsky, 1989; McLean, 2009; Wang et al.,
2010; Crow et al., 2012; Suliman and Kathairi, 2013), organizational trust (Saunders and
Thornhill, 2003; McLean, 2009), organizational citizenship behaviour (Moorman, 1991;
Bhupatkar, 2003; Muhammad, 2004; Orlowska, 2011) and employee performance
(Alder and Tompkins, 1997; Wang et al., 2010; Suliman and Kathairi, 2013), and
thus affect customers satisfaction and loyalty. Therefore, understanding how people
make judgments about justice in their organizations and how they respond to
perceived justice or injustice is a major issue, especially to develop an understanding of
organizational behaviour (Maleki and Taheri, 2012). Scholars have generally identified

two major perspectives of justice research: distributive justice and procedural justice
(Suliman and Kathairi, 2013), and on further extension, justice is proposed to have two
more dimensions, namely, interpersonal justice and informational justice (Colquitt,
2001). Fairness research focuses on who gets what (distributive justice), how goods
are assigned ( procedural justice), and the interpersonal treatment received along the
way (interactional justice) (Cropanzano et al., 2002).
The purpose of this research is to explore whether perceptions of distributive,
procedural and interactional justice are related to employee engagement. We have
structured this paper as follows: we begin with a review of literature on employee
engagement and on organizational justice together with its dimensions, followed by
a section on the inter-relationship between these dimensions of organizational justice.
We have also built up our argument on the linkage between organizational justice and
employee engagement on the basis of past research. Thereafter we have discussed the
objectives of the study, the methodology adopted and the results obtained. The paper
concludes with the managerial implications of the study, with a focus on contribution
to research, and the studys limitations and scope for further research in the domain of
organizational justice.
Employee engagement
Employee engagement has been a subject of extensive research in recent years.
With its initiation in practitioner literature and consulting firms (the most notable
being the Gallup Organization), the concept of employee engagement has gradually
gained grounds in academic literature.
The very first contribution to the academic literature on engagement is the seminal
work on personal engagement by Kahn (1990, 1992), who is regarded as the academic
parent of the employee engagement work (Welch, 2011, p. 332). Kahn (1990, p. 694)
defines personal engagement as the harnessing of organization members selves to
their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically,
cognitively and emotionally during role performances. Kahn (1990) in fact argued that
three psychological conditions are necessary for engagement: meaningfulness,
safety and availability. Rothbard (2001, p. 656) defines engagement as a psychological
presence, and proposes that it involves two critical components: attention and absorption.
Nelson and Simmons (2003) 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. Baumruk (2004), Shaw (2005) and Richman (2006) define engagement as
the emotional/intellectual commitment of an employee to the organization. Researchers
on burnout (e.g. Maslach et al., 2001; Harter et al., 2002; May et al., 2004) have visualized
engagement as the opposite or positive antithesis of burnout. According to Maslach
et al. (2001), engagement is characterized by energy, involvement and efficacy, the
direct opposite of the three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism and inefficacy
(Saks, 2006). More recent research has brought forth newer dimensions of engagement.
For example, Macey and Schneider (2008) have defined employee engagement as a
synthesis of aspects of the self (i.e. trait, state and behaviour) with situational aspects
(i.e. organizational conditions). Albrecht (2010, p. 5) has coined employee engagement
as a positive work-related psychological state characterized by a genuine willingness
to contribute to organizational success.
Saks (2006) observes that employee engagement has been defined in different
ways and these definitions and measures often sound like other better known and

Employee
engagement

629

PR
43,4

630

established constructs like organization commitment and organization citizenship

behaviour (Robinson et al., 2004). Extant literature also talks aplenty of similar yet
different constructs like work engagement (WE) and organization engagement (OE).
Saks (2006) 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 (Kahn, 1990), we have built our proposition that employee
engagement can be considered in two different constructs: work and OE.
WE
WE is a multi-dimensional latent motivational construct (Alfes et al., 2013, p. 2610),
described as [y] a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by
vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74; Schaufeli and Bakker,
2010). WE has been defined by Schaufeli and Bakker (2010, p. 22) as the psychological
state that accompanies the behavioral investment of personal energy. It depicts how
workers experience their work: as stimulating and energetic and something to which they
really want to devote their time and efforts (the vigour component); as a significant and
meaningful pursuit (the component of dedication); and as engrossing and something on
which they are fully concentrated (the component of absorption) (Bakker et al., 2011). WE
is characterized by a high level of energy and strong identification with ones work
(Bakker et al., 2008). It is a dynamic, dialectical relationship that exists between the person
who drives personal energies ( physical, cognitive, emotional and mental) into his/her
work role on the one hand, and the work role that allows this person to express him or
herself on the other (Kahn, 1990, 1992). Sample items for the Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (UWES) (Schaufeli et al., 2002) include: When I get up in the morning, I feel like
going to work (vigour); I am proud of the work I do (dedication); and I am immersed in
my work (absorption).
Organizational engagement
Saks (2006) describes OE as employees deep involvement in their organization because
they feel proud to be associated and to be part of the organization. He concludes
that OE is a persons attitude and attachment to his/her company. Sample items for
OE scale (Saks, 2006) are like: One of the most exciting things for me is getting
involved with things happening in this organization; and I am highly engaged in this
organization.
Review of justice-engagement literature prompts us to conclude that there is a
justice-engagement literature has a clear majority of research (e.g. Kittredge, 2010,
Inoue et al., 2010, Karatepe, 2011, Gupta and Kumar, 2012, Li, 2012, Strom et al., 2013)
that has concentrated on WE rather than OE (e.g. Andrew and Sofian, 2012, Biswas
et al., 2013, Malinen et al., 2013). However, in a global work environment characterized
by uncertainty and instability, attitude towards an organization, rather than ones
specific job, may be affected and, in turn, have implications for organization (Malinen
et al., 2013). This clearly asserts the growing relevance of OE. Further given that the
potentially influential nature of organizational engagement on important
organizational variables warrants further research (Saks, 2006), we have included
both work and OEs in our study to draw useful implications of organizational justice to
enhance both these constructs of employee engagement.

Organizational justice
Fairness is a core value in organizations (Konovsky, 2000); whether it is a promotion
decision, or assignment of tasks, or allocation of rewards, or any other type of social
exchange, matters of fairness are bound to arise in any organization (Coetzee, 2005).
The terms justice, fairness and equity have been used interchangeably in literature
(Adams, 1963; Leventhal, 1980; Moorman, 1991). Any event, action or decision is judged as
fair or unfair based upon an individuals beliefs about the decision and his/her value or
normative system, as it relates to those beliefs (Bies, 1987). People are social beings and
organizations therefore have to create settings in which employees are able to interact
socially (Coetzee, 2005). Literature has explored the different sorts of transactions that
occur among people at work (Suliman and Kathairi, 2013), and justice is an inevitable
component of such transactions. Organizational justice, a term coined by Wendell
French in 1964, is commonly used by organizational psychologists to refer to the just, fair
and ethical manner in which organizations treat their employees (Greenberg, 1990;
Cropanzano, 1993); it is based on fairness perceptions (Adams, 1965). In an organizational
set up, justice is about the rules and social norms governing how outcomes (e.g. rewards
and punishments) should be distributed, what are the procedures used for making such
distribution decisions, and how people are treated interpersonally (Bies and Tripp, 1995).
Organizational justice is concerned with the ways in which employees determine if they
have been treated fairly in their jobs and the ways in which those determinations influence
other work-related variables (Moorman, 1991, p. 845). It influences the attitude and
behaviour of employees and consequently their performance and the organizations
success (Coetzee, 2005).
Organizational justice has been researched extensively and has been subject to an
ongoing conflict about its various dimensions and if such dimensions can be
distinguished from each other ( Johnson, 2007). Various contemporary theorists have
argued that justice may range from a single dimension to four dimensions (Colquitt
et al., 2005). Research on Greenbergs (1993) four-factor model of justice, which includes
distributive justice, procedural justice and two classes of interactional justice (i.e.
interpersonal and informational justice), suggests that these four dimensions are
distinct constructs that can, and should ideally be, empirically distinguished from one
another (Blader and Tyler, 2000; Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001). The present study
has, however, used the three-factor model of justice (i.e. distributive, procedural and
interactional justice), regarded by Colquitt (2001) as the second most commonly used
conceptualization after the four-factor model.
Distributive justice
This dimension of justice has its roots in the much-celebrated equity theory suggested
by Adams (1965), and is based on the idea that social behaviour is conditioned by
the distribution of outcomes. Typical examples include perceptions of human resource
management practices, such as hiring decisions, performance appraisals, raise requests,
decisions about downsizing, layoffs, etc. ( Johnson, 2007). A large volume of extant
literature on distributive justice is directed towards fairness in the distribution and/or
allocation of outcomes (e.g. Homans, 1961; Adams, 1965; Deutsch, 1985; Niehoff and
Moorman, 1993; Colquitt, 2001; Nabatchi et al., 2007). Niehoff and Moorman (1993)
opine that distributive justice is the degree to which rewards are allocated in an
equitable manner. It refers to the perceived fairness of managerial decisions relative to
the distribution of outcomes such as pay (Colquitt, 2001) and promotions (Daileyl and
Kirk, 1992). Distributive justice is said to exist when the distribution of outcomes such

Employee
engagement

631

PR
43,4

632

as compensation, benefits, and other rewards meet employees expectations vis-a`-vis

their inputs (Clay-Warner et al., 2005; Simpson and Kaminski, 2007; Chou, 2009).
Procedural justice
Procedural justice research emphasizes that individuals pay particular attention
to and place importance on decision-making procedures. This dimension of justice
refers to peoples perceptions of the fairness of the rules and procedures used to
determine the outcomes they receive at workplace (Thibaut and Walker, 1975; Austin
and Tobiasen, 1984; Kressel and Pruitt, 1989; Suliman and Kathairi, 2013). Folger and
Cropanzano, (1998, p. 26) define procedural justice as fairness issues concerning the
methods, mechanisms, and processes used to determine outcome. When employees
view decision-making procedures to be accurate, consistent, unbiased and correctable,
they perceive organizational systems as following processes that meet justice criteria
(Colquitt et al., 2006).
Thibaut and Walker (1975) and Lind and Tyler (1988) found that perceived
fairness of procedures affects satisfaction with those procedures, independent of their
outcomes. In other words, when individuals believed that the procedures were fair,
they were more satisfied with the outcome they received, even when the outcome
was unfavourable. This is because such perception of fairness implies that employees
are valuable to the organization. This boosts their self-esteem and self-worth and
assures them that they are being given due attention in return for their services
(Colquitt and Chertkoff, 2002).
Interactional justice
Beyond distributive and procedural justice, Bies and Moag (1986) have suggested
another construct, i.e. interactional justice, as the third dimension of organizational
justice. Previously deemed to be a feature of procedural justice (Colquitt, 2001),
interactional justice has eventually emerged as an independent construct, considered to
be distinct and meaningfully different from the former (Bies and Moag, 1986; Folger
and Cropanzano, 1998). Beyond their concern about outcomes (i.e. distributive
justice) and procedures (i.e. procedural justice), employees of an organization also
evaluate whether they are treated by others, including colleagues and supervisors,
with respect and dignity (Crow et al., 2012). Interactional justice thus refers to the
quality of interpersonal processes and treatment of individuals (i.e. were they spoken to
with sincerity and sensitivity) as well as the extent to which the reasons behind
the outcome are explained (Bies and Moag, 1986). This dimension of justice deals with
the human side of organizational practices and, as such, is related to the
communication aspects (e.g. politeness, honesty and respect) between the source and
recipient of justice (Bies and Moag, 1986; Tyler and Bies, 1990). It is concerned with
how individuals in charge of allocating resources and rewards in the workplace
behave towards the recipients (Chou, 2009, p. 72).
Though research has identified two sub-categories of interactional justice, i.e.
informational and interpersonal justice, in the present study we have used a single
construct of interactional justice rather than dividing it into these two sub-categories.
Inter-relationship between distributive, procedural and interactional justice
Distributive justice and procedural justice are fairly well accepted as distinct
constructs (Cropanzano and Prehar, 1999; Konovsky, 2000). There is indeed a large
volume of literature that is devoted to the relationship between these two dimensions of

justice. Some scholars (e.g. Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Fryxell and Gordon, 1989)
suggest that there is a significant correlation between procedural and distributive
justice perceptions. Procedural justice has been considered to be important because
of its impact on distributional justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988). Robbins et al. (2000)
are of the view that procedural justice judgments are likely to influence perceptions of
distributive justice, but not the other way round. To McFarlin and Sweeney (1992),
procedural justice appears to be more important than distributive justice in predicting
outcomes related to evaluating a company as an institution, whereas distributive
justice is more important in predicting personal outcomes. Whereas distributive justice
focuses on outcomes, procedural justice emphasizes on the process that leads to the
results (Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991; Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997). Members
of an organization may perceive an outcome as being unfair, though they might agree
with the process of the decision making itself, or vice versa (Tyler, 1990). However, the
self-interest model by Lind and Tyler (1988) views procedural justice as primarily
important in its effects on ones perception of distributive justice. Fair procedures are
valued because they ultimately lead to favorable outcomes (Lipponen et al., 2004,
p. 276). That is to say, employees who view the procedures of their organization as fair
are likely to view the outcomes of those procedures as fair and just.
Sheppard et al (1992) argue that procedural justice is a means to distributive justice;
according to them, procedural justice concerns with the rules and procedures followed
to reward employees, and distributive justice is the second step, reflecting the degree to
which employees perceive such a reward distribution (arising out of procedural justice)
as equitable on the basis of the performance inputs. Studies (Tyler and Caine, 1981;
Alexander and Ruderman, 1987) that have looked simultaneously at the impact of
distributive and procedural justice judgments have found a predominant influence
of procedural justice on peoples reactions in groups.
However, in this study we have not attempted at establishing the influential effect of
any one of these dimensions of justice on the other. Instead we simply hypothesize that:
H1. Distributive justice will be positively related to procedural justice.
However, a distinction between procedural and interactional justice is not widely
accepted (Bobocel and Holmvall, 2001; Cropanzano and Ambrose, 2001). Bies (2001,
p. 99) argues that interactional and procedural justice are separate constructs because
there is consistent evidence that interactional justice and procedural justice affect
behaviour variables differently. Interactional justice is a distinct perception of fairness
in the interpersonal treatment of employees by the organization, while procedural
justice is related to the fairness of the procedures used for resolving disputes and
allocating outcomes (Bies and Moag, 1986; Pillai et al., 1999; Bies, 2001, 2005). Since
procedural justice is defined as the fairness of procedures that are designed by the
organization and applied by the supervisor, it can be viewed as a joint function of
organizational procedures and supervisor behaviour regarding the application of these
procedures (Suliman and Kathairi, 2013). Scandura (1999) differentiates procedural
and interactional justice by assuming that supervisors behaviours can affect only
interactional justice and not procedural justice. The author is of the opinion that if
members receive correct communication from their supervisors about reasons for
distribution of rewards, then they would be able to perceive interactional justice, even
if they belong to different groups. It is through proper communication (i.e. interactional
justice) that perceptions of procedural and distributive injustice (in cases where

Employee
engagement

633

PR
43,4

employees make social comparisons) can be changed (Scandura, 1999). Accordingly,

we hypothesize that:
H2. Procedural justice will be positively related to interactional justice.

634

No theoretical evidence could, however, be found on the relationship between distributive

justice and interactional justice in the extant literature on justice. For instance,
a meta-analytic review of 183 organizational justice studies spread over 25 years by
Colquitt et al. (2001) has also not provided any substantiation of this relationship.
Rationale for connecting link between engagement and justice
The social exchange theory (SET) (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005) provides a strong
theoretical foundation to explain why employees choose to be more or less engaged in
their work and with their organization. Hence it serves as a well-established theoretical
framework for explaining how peoples perception about organizational justice may
influence their engagement with their work and organization. This theory argues that
obligations are generated through a series of interactions between parties who are in a
state of reciprocal interdependence. A basic premise of SET is that relationships evolve
over time into trusting, loyal and mutual commitments as long as the parties involved
abide by certain rules of exchange (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).
Research on organizational justice is vast, and has been guided by the notion that
employees who believe they are treated fairly will be favourably disposed towards the
organization and engage in prosocial behaviour on behalf of the organization (Barling
and Phillips, 1993, p. 649). Organizational justice, which represents employees
observed fairness at the workplace, governs their social exchange relationships
(Kashyap et al., 2007). Extant research has indicated that within the framework of the
SET, organizational justice would be directly associated with the quality of social
exchange between individuals and their organizations (Bhatnagar and Biswas, 2010)
and in turn may lead to employee engagement (Biswas et al., 2013). Therefore, when
employees have high perceptions of justice in their organization, they are also more
likely to feel obliged to be fair in how they perform their roles by giving more of
themselves through greater levels of engagement (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). On
the contrary, low perceptions of fairness are likely to cause employees to withdraw and
disengage themselves from their work roles (Biswas et al., 2013). Also, fairness and
justice constitute one of the work conditions in Maslach et al.s (2001) engagement
model, that is to say, positive perceptions of fairness can improve engagement
(Maslach et al., 2001).
Engagement at work is frequently researched in the framework of job
demands-resource ( JD-R) model, as lack of resources has been associated with
employee disengagement (Demerouti et al., 2001). Here, job resources refer to the
physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job that are either/or
functional in achieving work goals (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Further, procedural,
distributive justice and interactional justice perceptions may be looked upon as
resources which may be instrumental in enhancing employee engagement due to their
functional role in goal accomplishment.
Fairness has considered by many researchers as one of the key predictors of
employees affective states and behaviours. Fairness and justice feature as one of the
six work-life factors that lead to WE as a work outcome in burnout literature (Maslach
et al., 2001). A lack of fairness can accentuate burnout, while a positive perception of

fairness can improve engagement (Maslach et al., 2001). A number of studies

(e.g. Bies, 1987; Greenberg, 1989, 1990; Sheppard et al., 1992; Folger, 1993) show that
when employees believe organizational decisions and managerial actions are unfair
or unjust, they experience feelings of anger, outrage and resentment, and may even
engage in acts of retribution or retaliation (Sheppard et al., 1992; Greenberg and
Scott, 1996; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997). On the contrary, when employees have
high perception of justice in their organization, they are more likely to be fair in their
roles by giving more of themselves through greater levels of engagement (Saks, 2006),
and reciprocate through exhibiting organizational citizenship behaviours (Organ,
1988; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Skarlicki and Latham, 1996, 1997). Past studies
(e.g. Greenberg, 1990) have also showed how organizational injustice could explain
disengagement of employees.
Because distributive justice focuses on outcomes, any unfairness perceived regarding
a particular outcome is likely to affect employee emotions. Typical examples of
such emotions, as found in literature, are anger, happiness, guilt or pride (Weiss et al.,
1999). Impact on cognitions includes cognitively distorted inputs and outcomes of
himself/herself or the other (Adams, 1965; Austin and Walster, 1974; Walster et al., 1978).
All such emotions and cognitions ultimately impact employee behaviour, leading to their
withdrawal or poor performance. Distributive justice has been shown to be significantly
and positively related to perceived organizational support (POS) (Wayne et al., 2002), pay
satisfaction and general work satisfaction (DeConinck et al., 1996). Lack of distributive
justice has been associated with employee theft (Greenberg, 1990). Gagne et al. (2007)
found that autonomous work motivation mediated the relation between distributive
justice and work satisfaction, and the relation between distributive justice and turnover
intentions. Elanain (2008) has tested the mediating impact of distributive justice on the
relationship between work characteristics given by Hackman and Oldham (1975) and
work outcomes (work satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions).
Findings showed that distributive justice fully mediates the relationship between skill
variety and work satisfaction and between task identity and turnover intentions. Review
of extant literature prompts us to hypothesize that:
H3. Distributive justice will be positively related to work and OEs.
While distributive justice pertains to ones perception of the fairness of decision
outcomes, procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the means and processes
used to determine the amount and distribution of resources (Colquitt, 2001; Rhoades
et al., 2001). It has been argued that distributive justice predicts satisfaction with the
outcome (i.e. pay satisfaction), whereas procedural justice influences the evaluation of the
organization and its authorities (i.e. trust in supervision and organizational commitment)
(Cropanzano and Folger, 1989; Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993). Saks (2006) argued that
perceptions of procedural and distributive justice would relate to both work and OE.
However, he found evidence only to support that procedural justice had a positive
effect on OE. In another study by Gupta and Kumar (2012), both distributive and
procedural justice have been found to impact WE equally; for instance, employees who
perceive procedural justice positively show greater absorption, and those who perceive
distributive justice positively exhibit greater dedication and vigour.
Ram and Prabhakar (2011) found perception of procedural justice to be positively
and strongly related to perception of distributive justice and POS, indicating that
supervisors played a major role in ensuring implementation of procedures in a fair and

Employee
engagement

635

PR
43,4

636

unbiased manner. A weak relation between perceived supervisor support (PSS) and
perception of distributive justice revealed that supervisors did not have absolute
control over distribution of benefits and rewards and also in ensuring the reach of the
procedures that were implemented. Perception of procedural justice was related to
employee engagement and strongly related with work satisfaction, organizational
commitment and OCB, whereas perception of distributive justice was found to be
positively related to employee engagement. Strong correlations were found between
work satisfaction, organizational commitment and OCB with perceptions of procedural
and distributive justice and employee engagement. In another study by Kittredge
(2010), procedural justice was significant in predicting vigour, but was not significant
in predicting the other two dimensions of WE proposed by Schaufeli et al. (2002),
namely, dedication and absorption. Consistent with Saks (2006), Kittredges (2010)
study found that procedural justice predicted OE. On the basis of overall literature
reviewed, we hypothesize that:
H4. Procedural justice will be positively related to work and OEs.
Given that employees maintain two exchange relationships, one with their organization
and another with their immediate supervisor (Masterson et al., 2000), procedural justice
is found to be related to organization-related outcomes, whereas interactional justice is
related to managerial-related outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001). As interactional justice
as a key environmental factor in managerial-related outcomes, it may play a directive
role in strengthening the relation between leader/supervisor and engagement.
Studies have showed that perceptions of interactional justice are positively related to
commitment to the supervisor, leader-member exchange and supervisory satisfaction
(Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). Unbiased and respective attitudes of supervisors,
which are an essential aspect of interactional justice, are likely to lead to greater
perception of social support at work among workers (Fujishiro and Heaney, 2009), which
is an already established antecedent of employee engagement (e.g. Schaufeli and Bakker,
2004; Hakanen et al., 2006; Llorens et al., 2006). Interactional justice also includes the
provision of information about actual decision-making procedures (Bies and Moag, 1986)
that allows workers to have better control over their work. Job control (Demerouti et al.,
2001; Hakanen et al., 2006; Llorens et al., 2006; Bakker et al., 2007) has been reported to be
a determinant of WE in the studies conducted within the framework of the JD-R model
(Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).
Hence we hypothesize that:
H5. Interactional justice will be positively related to work and OEs.
Taken together, distributive and interactional justice have been found to be significant
predictors of employee engagement, unlike procedural justice, in a study of bank
employees of Pakistan (Alvi and Abbasi, 2012). A study of employees from hi-tech
service companies in China has shown all these three dimensions to be significantly
and positively related to WE (Li, 2012).
Objectives of the study
Our study aims at examining the possibility of the inter-relationships of employees
perceptions of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Further, we would
investigate the individual roles of these three dimensions of justice as antecedents of

both work and OEs, as an extension of the antecedents-consequences model of Saks

(2006). The objectives of this study may thus be summed up to be:
.

examining the inter-relationships between distributive, procedural and

interactional justice; and

investigating the individual influences of distributive justice, procedural justice

and interactional justice on work and OEs.

Employee
engagement

637

Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model showing the inter-relationship between the three
dimensions of organizational justice and their relation with work and OEs.
Method
The survey was conducted across 22 branches of 15 public sector banks in north India.
Ambrose and Cropanzano (2003) suggest that individuals acquire more information
and experience with procedures and outcomes over time, which eventually affect the
influence of procedural and distributive justice on their organizational attitudes.
Selection of sample was hence guided by the notion that a time span of less than a year
would probably be insufficient to develop perceptions of distributive, procedural and
interactional justice at workplace. Hence an initial round of screening eliminated those
employees who have been with their employer for less than a year, and the survey
questionnaire was distributed to 284 bank employees of various public sector banks in
India. The questionnaire was appended with a cover letter mentioning the purpose of
the study and the affiliation of the researchers. It also assured the participants of
anonymity and confidentiality. The process of data collection took around a month, and
the completed questionnaires were personally collected. However, 74 questionnaires
had some missing data and hence could not be used further. The final number of usable
questionnaires stood at 210, registering a response rate of 73.9 per cent.
Demographic data in Table I suggest that the sample is somewhat balanced with
respect to gender distribution (female 44.3 per cent). With respect to age, the highest
representation is of the age group of below 30 years (46.3 per cent), and the lowest at
17.2 per cent of the age group of more than 45 years. The composition of respondents in
terms of length of service with their respective banks reflected that both the shortest

Distributive
Justice

Procedural
Justice

Job
Engagement
Organization
Engagement

Interactional
Justice

Figure 1.
Conceptual model of
organizational justice and
employee engagement

PR
43,4

638

Table I.
Demographic profile
of respondents

%
Gender
Male
Female
Age
Less than 30 years
30-45 years
More than 45 years
Length of service with organization
Less than 1 year
1-3 years
3-6 years
More than 6 years

55.7
44.3
46.3
36.5
17.2
15.8
36.9
31.5
15.8

and longest tenures with respective employers have registered equal representation at
15.8 per cent, while 36.9 per cent of the sample has revealed to have been with their
employer for a period of one to three years. In terms of level of management, majority
of the respondents (50.2 per cent) represent middle management, followed by those in
junior level (37.4 per cent).
Criterion variables
WE. We have measured WE by using the nine-items short form of UWES suggested
by Schaufeli et al. (2002). The measure is widely used in justice-engagement literature
(e.g. Li et al., 2010; Inoue et al., 2010; Kittredge, 2010; Karatepe, 2011; Li, 2012; Strom et al.,
2013) and also in Indian context (Gupta and Kumar, 2012). Three aspects of WE have
been measured in this study, namely, vigour (a 0.831), dedication (a 0.847) and
absorption (a 0.736), Examples include: At work I feel bursting with energy (vigour);
I am proud of the work I do (dedication); I am immersed in my work (absorption).
OE. The items used to measure OE were taken from the six-item scale (a 0.937)
suggested by Saks (2006). The scale is widely used in justice-engagement literature
(e.g. Andrew and Sofian, 2012, Biswas et al., 2013, Malinen et al., 2013) and also in
Indian context (Biswas et al., 2013). It includes items like I am highly engaged in this
organization and One of the most exciting things for me is getting involved with
things happening in this organization.
Predictor variables
The 20-item scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) was used to measure
distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice. This scale has been
used by Biswas et al. (2013) in Indian context. The measure was assessed on a
five-point scale ranging from 0 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree.
Distributive justice. Distributive justice (a 0.86) was measured with five items
designed to measure the fairness of rewards. Sample items included: I am fairly rewarded
considering my responsibilities and I am fairly rewarded for the work I have done well.
Procedural justice. Procedural justice (a 0.69) was measured with six items
designed to measure the fairness of procedures. Sample items are: My organization
has formal procedures designed to provide opportunities to appeal or challenge
decisions and My organization has formal procedures designed to let all sides
affected by a decision be represented.

Interactional justice. Interactional justice (a 0.88) was measured using nine items
designed to measure the fairness of interactions. Examples of items included are: My
supervisor considers my viewpoint and My supervisor treats me with kindness and
consideration.
Control variables
Prior studies in justice literature (e.g. Ang et al., 2003; Avolio et al., 2004) have
demonstrated that demographic variables like age, tenure and respondents educational
level are potential predictors of the study criterion. Additionally, as an outcome of recent
interest in glass ceiling for women and its potential impact on perceptions of fairness,
gender has also been used as a control variable in fairness research (e.g. Lemons and
Danehower, 1996; Lemons and Jones, 2000). On the basis of such instances from past
research, the control variables of gender, age and length of service with the bank were
used in this study. Gender was coded 1 for men and 2 for women; age was coded 1 for
o30 years, 2 for 30-45 years and 3 for more than 45 years. Tenure with the bank was
coded with 1 less than a year, 2 1-3 years, 3 3-6 years and 4 more than 6 years.
Results
Table II presents the means, standard deviations and correlations for the study
variables. The correlation values support the hypotheses H1 and H2 that procedural
justice is positively related with distributive (r 0.580 at po0.01) and interactional
(r 0.624 at po0.01) justice. Another interesting correlation between distributive
and interactional justice (r 0.645 at po0.01) is noticeable. Incidentally, previous
literature does not provide evidence of any correlation between these two dimensions
of justice and hence no associations between them was hypothesized in the study.
Distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice were all found to be
significantly related to OE (r 0.509, r 0.538, r 0.578, respectively, at po0.01) and
WE (r 0.569, r 0.502, r 0.591 at po0.01, respectively). Overall, these preliminary
findings lend initial support to our hypotheses H3, H4 and H5 and give us the
confidence to proceed with the subsequent steps in analysis.
To perform a more rigorous examination of the hypotheses, hierarchical multiple
regression was performed in the next step. Table III shows the results of the regression
analysis predicting WE and OE. Control variables were entered in the first block and
justice variables were added in the second block to calculate the changes in R2. None of
the control variables were found significant. When added into the equation, all three
types of justice were found to be significant for OE but only distributive and
interactional justice were found significant for WE. Distributive justice predicted both
WE (b 0.324, po0.01) and OE (b 0.286, po0.01); we hence conclude that H3 is
fully supported. Procedural justice predicted WE only. Hence H4 has been partially
supported. H5 is fully supported as interactional justice is found to predict both WE
and OE (b 0.271, po0.01 and b 0.216, po0.05, respectively). Looking at the R 2
values for the models we may infer that the regression equations accounted for 48 per
cent of the variance in WE and 42 per cent of the variance in OE.
Discussion
This research has examined distributive, procedural and interactional justice as
potential antecedents of work and OEs on a sample of employees of Indian public
sector banks. Banks play a dominant role in Indias financial system, and performance
of the banking sector is reflective of the growth pattern of the Indian economy

Employee
engagement

639

Table II.
Means, standard
deviations and
correlations of variables
1.71
1.44
2.47
3.84
3.55
3.36
3.28
3.49

0.744
0.498
0.940
1.22
0.737
0.832
0.594
0.703
0.131
0.728**
0.162*
0.089
0.282**
0.113
0.140*

0.154*
0.119
0.072
0.016
0.072
0.026

0.169*
0.075
0.199**
0.069
0.056

0.734**
0.569**
0.502**
0.591**

0.509**
0.538**
0.578**

0.580**
0.645**

0.624**

Notes: SD, standard deviation; JE, job engagement; OE, organization engagement; Dis_ Just, distributive justice; Proc_ Just, procedural justice; Inter_ Just,
interactional justice. *, **Correlation is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively

Age of employee
Gender of employee
Length of service with bank
WE
OE
Dis_ Just
Proc_ Just
Inter_ Just

SD

640

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Mean

PR
43,4

WE
Control variables
Age of employee
Gender of employee
Length of service with the bank
Predictor variables
Distributive justice
Procedural justice
Interactional justice
R2
Adjusted R2

DR2

0.142
0.086
0.095
0.324**
0.131
0.271*
0.480
0.461

OE

DR2

Employee
engagement

0.107
0.053
0.035

0.380

0.286*
0.232*
0.216**
0.428
0.407

641
0.390

Notes: JE, job engagement; OE, organization engagement, *po0.01; **po0.05

as a whole. Arrival of new private and foreign banks has given an impetus to public
sector banks to be more competitive, effective and innovative in their approach
(Shrivastava and Purang, 2011). Due to the increasing importance of human capital in
this sector, employee engagement in banks has also emerged as a major issue to be
considered by researchers. However, no study could be found that has measured
employees perception of justice dimensions on employee engagement in the Indian
banking sector. Therefore, this research was conducted to determine how the
perception of organizational justice (distributive, procedural and interactional) at
workplace may influence work and OEs. All the three dimensions of justice were
found to have positively predicted OE, whereas only two of them (i.e. distributive
and interactional justice) predicted WE. Another set of robust findings is the
inter-relationship found between these three dimensions of organizational justice.
While each is conceptually and operationally different, all the three dimensions have
been found to have a positive correlation with each other, as well as with work and
OEs. The results thus support Saks (2006) finding of procedural justice and
distributive justice as antecedents of engagement. Overall, these results further
demonstrate and extend the positive work-related outcomes of organizational justice.
Our results show that distributive, procedural and interactional justice are related to
work and OEs. We may hence infer that the distribution of rewards, organizational
policies and procedures, and interpersonal treatment by supervisors have their
individual influence on employee engagement. Another unique finding of this study is
that distributive justice and interactional justice take precedence over procedural
justice in determining WE. In their celebrated work relating burnout and engagement,
Maslach et al. (2001) have argued that WE is associated with a sustainable workload,
feelings of choice and control, appropriate reward and recognition, a supportive work
community, fairness and justice, and meaningfulness and valued work. We may thus
comprehend that WE is associated with both distributive justice (in terms of
appropriate rewards and recognition) and interactional justice (in terms of supportive
work environment). Our finding that distributive justice and interactional justice are
more important in predicting WE thus seems to be in consonance with the definition of
WE by Maslach et al. (2001). Further, when an employee feels that the outcomes (salary
hike, rewards, etc.) are commensurate with the efforts put in, he/she reciprocates with
greater vigour and dedication and is more engaged ( physically, cognitively and
emotionally) in his/her work (Gupta and Kumar, 2012). This upholds the relevance of
distributive justice in affecting WE, which also has been substantiated in our study.

Table III.
Multivariate regressions
predicting job and
organization engagements

PR
43,4

642

Our results suggest that in determining OE, distributive justice plays the most
important role, followed by procedural and interactional justice. OE reflects a persons
attitude and attachment to his/her organization (Saks, 2006), and is a different though
related construct of WE. Our study marks a departure from that of Saks (2006),
wherein only procedural justice is found to predict OE. We may relate our findings to
the psychological condition of safety associated with engagement/disengagement at
work (Kahn, 1990). The safety dimension involves social situations that are predictable
and consistent. Such predictability and consistency of procedures may be related to
assigning of rewards, resources, etc. at work. For organizations, it is hence especially
important to be predictable and consistent in terms of the distribution of rewards, as
well as the procedures used to allocate them. Research on safety (Edmondson, 1996,
1999; Whitener et al., 1998) proposes supervisory relations, co-worker relations and
behavioural norms to be the determinants of psychological safety.
Overall, we may conclude that all the three dimensions of justice have their
individual effects on OE, and the same has been established in our study.
Managerial implications of the study
A key issue before organizations is how to promote the engagement level of their
employees. Engagement has been receiving increased attention from researchers as an
important determinant of employee performance (Gruman and Saks, 2011). Not only
does employee engagement have the potential to significantly affect employee
retention, productivity and loyalty, but it is also a key link to customer satisfaction,
company reputation and overall stakeholder value (Lockwood, 2007). Hence a key issue
before organizations is how to promote the engagement level of their employees.
Keeping in perspective the benefits of an engaged workforce, the present research has
significant implications for organizations, and in particular, organizational procedures
deciding employee perception towards distributive, procedural and interactional justice.
Overall, our findings can be understood in the framework of the SET, which suggests that
the relationship between employees and an organization can be reciprocal. If employees
have a better perception of organizational justice, and they feel they are treated justly, they
are likely to reciprocate by increasing their engagement levels (Saks, 2006). Towards this
end, Indian public sector banks should foster a work environment focusing on
organizational justice; this would encourage social exchange attitudes among employees
(Bettencourt et al., 2005). In addition, based on the norm of reciprocity, employees expect
their organization to recognize and reward their efforts. Therefore, banks should be
committed to recognizing employees efforts and offer financial and non-financial rewards
(e.g. work-life benefits) to their employees based on the organizational standards.
Let us discuss the relevance of relative deprivation in context of distributive
justice here. The existence of relative deprivation brings to question fair sharing of
rewards or distributive justice (Adams, 1965). Distribution of outcomes like pay and
promotion in public sector banks may be designed in a fair and equitable manner in
order to enhance the perceptions of fairness of employees. Following McFarlin and
Sweeney (1992), who posit that distributive justice is a predictor of two personal
outcomes, i.e. pay satisfaction and work satisfaction, perceptions of distributive justice
among employees may be enhanced by introducing innovative changes in the pay
structure and also ensuring overall work satisfaction of the workforce.
Rahim et al. (2000) have laid down the criteria for procedural justice that include the
presence of formal procedures that: ensure decisions are based on accurate information,
are applied consistently over time and across people, provide an opportunity to voice

ones opinions during decision making, allow for the appeal of bad decisions, suppress
personal bias on the part of decision makers, and ensure that decisions are made in a
moral and ethical manner. Banks can hence ensure procedural justice by designing a
transparent structure involving participation of employees in decision-making
procedures. Further, existence of a robust grievance handling mechanism can help
enhance perception of distributive justice among employees.
Because interactional justice is determined by the interpersonal behaviour of
management representatives, i.e. the direct supervisor or the source of justice, interactional
justice is considered to be related to cognitive, affective and behavioural reactions towards
these representatives (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). This dimension of justice is
effective in interviews conducted during selection, performance appraisals and feedback
interventions. Training of managers in soft skills may improve their interpersonal
behaviours with employees especially during selection interviews, performance appraisals
and any other activity that necessitates the mechanism of feedback.
Through having greater distributive, procedural justice and interactional justice,
employees may be more motivated and involved in their work. The research is also
useful in understanding the nature of the behavioural contributions made by
employees to their organizations as a function of their justice perceptions. Specifically,
as Gupta and Kumar (2012) point out, employees who perceive procedural justice show
greater absorption; employees who perceive distributive performance appraisal justice
exhibit greater dedication and vigour; and employees who perceive informational
justice are more physically, cognitively and behaviourally engaged in their work.
Also, they are more likely to show greater overall motivation and commitment to their
job, feel excited and take pride in their work, search for new ways of doing things, and
try to go an extra mile in order to do their work well.
Summing up, we may say that the results of this study provide evidence that
distributive, procedural and interactional justice can be instrumental in enhancing
employees engagement both with their work and organization. Furthermore, by
highlighting the correlation (and hence interaction) among these three dimensions of
justice, this study offers useful insights into the underlying processes through which
WE and OE can be improved. Finally, the finding that organizational justice can
promote both work and OEs tends to reaffirm the importance of justice as a critical
determinant of employee engagement.
Contribution to research
In an effort to contribute to justice research in an organizational framework, this
paper explores the role of distributive, procedural and interactional justice in
influencing engagement levels of public sector bank employees in India. The findings
from the study are expected to make significant contribution to existing literature.
We have not aimed specifically at establishing the importance of procedural justice
above and beyond distributive justice. Instead, we have explored the possibility of
inter-relationship among the three dimensions of justice. Though interaction
between procedural and distributive justice is well established, followed by that
between procedural and interactional justice, not many research has focused on
interactions between all these three types of justice, especially between distributive
and interactional justice. The linkage between interactional justice and supervisor
attitude has already been explored by researchers in the past. Perceived interactional
justice depends on employees reaction to the way in which their direct supervisors
carry out formal procedures (Greenberg, 1987). Unbiased and respective attitudes of

Employee
engagement

643

PR
43,4

644

supervisors, which are an essential aspect of interactional justice, are likely to lead to
greater perception of social support at work among workers (Fujishiro and
Heaney, 2009).
The issue of supervisor relations has been considered by Saks (2006) in his seminal
antecedents-consequences model as PSS, which was found to be a significant predictor
of employee engagement. Probably because the variable PSS deals with the role of
supervisor in providing social support to employees, the antecedents-consequences
model has considered only distributive justice and procedural justice and not
interactional justice. Hence this research paper makes a departure from Saks (2006)
model, and has considered interactional justice along with the other two dimensions of
justice in predicting employee engagement. In this way it adds to the very small
number of studies that have investigated the role of interactional justice in enhancing
work and OEs individually. Another unique contribution of this study is that
interactional justice is established to be related to the other dimensions of justice and
that it plays an important role in determining work and OEs.
Limitations of the study and scope for further research
In spite of sincere efforts on the part of the researchers, this study has some limitations.
First, sample size was relatively small, which may result in reducing the statistical
significance of the results. Future studies might seek to evaluate the constructs
discussed in this study in a more diverse geographical area covering pan-India
branches to yield better generalization of the findings. Second, the three dimensions of
organizational justice have been modeled in a linear manner using traditional
regression analysis. However, given the complex relationship already established
between these dimensions (e.g. by Lind and Tyler, 1988; Cohen-Charash and Spector,
2001; Colquitt et al., 2001), using structural equation modeling could definitely lead to
more interesting insights on the inter-relationship among these three dimensions.
Third, the extent to which these findings generalize to respondents working in private
sector banks in India is not clear, as these banks may have different procedures,
outcome distribution and interpersonal processes or treatment of individuals, which
may cause different perceptions of employees towards distributive, procedural and
interactional justice. Further interesting observations could be drawn by a comparative
analysis between public and private sector bank employees. Our study has only taken
three dimensions of justice i.e. distributive, procedural, interactional and two forms of
engagement, i.e. work and OEs. Inclusion of informational and interactional justice
as the two components of interactional justice can also yield interesting results.
We recommend further studies to include moderating variables like leadership and
trust to find the possible impact of interaction of organizational justice with these
variables on employee engagement. Future research may also consider linking the
constructs of the present study to variables like POS and leadership in predicting
engagement, or may further be extended to determine work outcomes like OCB due to
interaction among these dimensions of justice.
Yet another study limitation is the reliance on self-report data in gathering
information from a single individual (i.e. the respondent) on a single occasion.
This approach raises questions about common source bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
In order to minimize the effects of common method bias, we have compiled items
that minimize item ambiguity, using reliable and valid scales, and have also considered
reduction in potential evaluation apprehension by guaranteeing anonymity of
respondents answers as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003).

References
Adams, J.S. (1963), Toward an understanding of inequity, Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 422-436.
Adams, J.S. (1965), Inequity in social exchange, in Berekowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, Vol. 2, pp. 267-299.
Albrecht, S. (2010), Handbook of Employee Engagement, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Alder, S.A. and Tompkins, P.K. (1997), Electronic performance monitoring: an organizational
justice and concretive control perspective, Management Communications Quarterly,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 259-288.
Alexander, S. and Ruderman, M. (1987), The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behavior, Social Justice Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 177-198.
Alfes, K., Shantz, A.D., Truss, C. and Soane, E.C. (2013), The link between perceived human
resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: a moderated
mediation model, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 330-351.
Alvi, A.K. and Abbasi, A.S. (2012), Impact of organizational justice on employee engagement
in banking sector of Pakistan, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 12 No. 5,
pp. 643-649.
Ambrose, M.L. and Cropanzano, R. (2003), A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness:
an examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 266-275.
Andrew, O.C. and Sofian, S. (2012), Individual factors and work outcomes of employee
engagement, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 40, pp. 498-508.
Ang, S., Dyne, L.V. and Begley, T. (2003), The employment relationships of foreign workers
versus local employees: a field study of organizational justice, job satisfaction,
performance, and OCB, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 561-583.
Austin, W. and Walster, E. (1974), Participants reactions to equity with the world, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 528-548.
Austin, W.G. and Tobiasen, J.M. (1984), Legal justice and the psychology of conflict resolution,
in Folger, R. (Ed.), The Sense of Injustice: Social Psychological Perspectives, Plenum,
New York, NY, pp. 227-274.
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating
role of structural distance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 951-968.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), The job demands-resources model: state of the art,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L. and Leiter, M.P. (2011), Key questions regarding work engagement,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-28.
Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2007), Job resources boost work
engagement, particularly when job demands are high, Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 274-284.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. and Taris, T.W. (2008), Work engagement:
an emerging concept in occupational health psychology, Work & Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 187-200.
Barling, J. and Phillips, M. (1993), Interactional, formal and distributive justice in the workplace:
an exploratory study, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 127 No. 6, pp. 649-657.
Baumruk, R. (2004), The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business successes,
Workspan, Vol. 47, pp. 48-52.

Employee
engagement

645

PR
43,4

646

Bettencourt, L.A., Brown, S.W. and McKenzie, S.B. (2005), Customer-oriented boundaryspanning behaviors: test of a social exchange model of antecedents, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 141-157.
Bhatnagar, J. and Biswas, S. (2010), Predictors & outcomes of employee engagement:
implications for the resource-based view perspective, Indian Journal of Industrial
Relations, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 273-288.
Bhupatkar, A.A. (2003), Employees perceptions of organizational justice on work satisfaction
and organizational citizenship behavior, masters thesis, Emporia State University,
Emporia.
Bies, R.J. (1987), The predicament of injustice: the management of moral outrage, in Cummings, L.L.
and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, JAI Press, Greenwich,
CT, pp. 289-319.
Bies, R.J. (2001), Interactional (in) justice: the sacred and the profane, in Greenberg, J. and
Cropanzano, R. (Eds), Advances in Organizational Justice, Stanford University Press,
Palo Alto, CA, pp. 85-108.
Bies, R.J. (2005), Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct?,
in Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Justice, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 85-112.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.F. (1986), Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness,
in Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiation in
Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol. 1, pp. 43-55.
Bies, R.J. and Tripp, T.M. (1995), Beyond distrust: getting even and the need for revenge,
in Karmer, R.M. and Tyler, T.T. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Newbury Park, CA,
pp. 246-260.
Biswas, S., Varma, A. and Ramaswami, A. (2013), Linking distributive and procedural justice to
employee engagement through social exchange: a field study in India, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 1570-1587.
Blader, S.L. and Tyler, T.R. (2000), A four-component model of procedural justice: what makes
a process fair in work settings?, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management, Toronto, 8 August.
Bobocel, D.R. and Holmvall, C.M. (2001), Are interactional justice and procedural justice different?
Framing the debate, in Gilliland, S., Steiner, D. and Skarlicki, D. (Eds), Theoretical and
Cultural Perspectives on Organizational Justice, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 85-108.
Chou, R.J.A. (2009), Organizational justice and turnover intention: a study of direct care workers
in assisted living facilities for older adults in the United States, Social Development Issues,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Clay-Warner, J., Reynolds, J. and Roman, P. (2005), Organizational justice and work satisfaction:
a test of three competing models, Social Justice Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 391-409.
Coetzee, M. (2005), The fairness of affirmative action: an organizational justice perspective,
masters thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 278-321.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of
a measure, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400.
Colquitt, J.A. and Chertkoff, J.M. (2002), Explaining injustice: the interactive effects of
explanation and outcome on fairness perceptions and task motivation, Journal of
Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 591-610.

Colquitt, J.A., Greenberg, J. and Zapata-Phelan, C.P. (2005), What is organizational justice?
A historical overview, in Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J.A. (Eds), Handbook of
Organizational Justice, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 3-58.
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., Judge, T.A. and Shaw, J.C. (2006), Justice and personality: using
integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 110-127.
Colquitt, J.A., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O., Conlon, D.E. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), Justice at the
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 425-445.
Cropanzano, R. (Ed.) (1993), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource
Management, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Cropanzano, R. and Ambrose, M.L. (2001), Procedural and distributive justice are more similar
than you think: a monistic perspective and a research agenda, in Greenberg, J. and
Cropanzano, R. (Eds), Advances in Organizational Justice, Stanford University Press,
Stanford, CA, pp. 119-151.
Cropanzano, R. and Folger, R. (1989), Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: beyond
equity theory, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 293-299.
Cropanzano, R. and Greenberg, J. (1997), Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through
the maze, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12. Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 317-372.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M. (2005), Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-899.
Cropanzano, R. and Prehar, C.A. (1999), Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural
from interactional justice, paper presented at the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, 30 April-2 May.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C.A. and Chen, P.Y. (2002), Using social exchange theory to distinguish
procedural from interactional justice, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 324-351.
Crow, M.S., Lee, C. and Joo, J. (2012), Organizational justice and organizational commitment
among South Korean police officers: an investigation of work satisfaction as
a mediator, International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 402-423.
Daileyl, R.C. and Kirk, D.J. (1992), Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job
dissatisfaction and intent to turnover, Human Relations, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 305-317.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), The job
demands-resources model of burnout, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3,
pp. 499-512.
Deutsch, M. (1985), Distributive Justice, University Press, New Haven, CT.
DeConinck, J.B., Stilwell, C.D. and Brock, B.A. (1996), A construct validity analysis of scores on
measures of distributive justice and pay satisfaction, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 1026-1036.
Edmondson, A. (1996), Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: group and
organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 5-32.
Edmondson, A. (1999), Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-383.
Elanain, H.M.A. (2008), Work characteristics, work attitudes, and behaviors in a non-western
context, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 457-477.

Employee
engagement

647

PR
43,4

Folger, R. (1993), Reactions to mistreatment at work, in Murnighan, J.K. (Ed.), Social Psychology
in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
pp. 161-183.
Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

648

Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989), Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 115-130.
Fryxell, G.E. and Gordon, M.E. (1989), Workplace justice and work satisfaction as predictors
of satisfaction with union and management, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32
No. 4, pp. 851-866.
Fujishiro, K. and Heaney, C.A. (2009), Justice at work, work stress, and employee health, Health
Education Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 487-504.
Gagne, M., Donia, M. and Berube, N. (2007), Relationships Between Organizational Justice and
Different Motivational Orientations, In SIOP Congress, New York, NY.
Greenberg, J. (1987), Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: do the means
justify the ends?, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 55-61.
Greenberg, J. (1989), Cognitive reevaluation of outcomes in response to underpayment inequity,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 174-184.
Greenberg, J. (1990), Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow, Journal of
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 399-432.
Greenberg, J. (1993), The social side of fairness: interpersonal and informational classes of
organizational justice, in Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching
Fairness in Human Resource Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, pp. 79-103.
Greenberg, J. and Scott, K.S. (1996), Why do employees bite the hands that feed them? Employee
theft as a social exchange process, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 111-166.
Gruman, J.A. and Saks, A.M. (2011), Performance management and employee engagement,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 123-136.
Gupta, V. and Kumar, S. (2012), Impact of performance appraisal justice on employee
engagement: a study of Indian professionals, Employee Relations, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 61-78.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), Development of the work diagnostic survey, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), Burnout and work engagement among
teachers, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 495-513.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), Business- unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 268-279.
Homans, G.C. (1961), Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, NY.
Inoue, A., Kawakami, N., Ishizaki, M., Shimazu, A., Tsuchiya, M., Tabata, M. and Akiyama, M.
(2010), Organizational justice, psychological distress, and work engagement in Japanese
workers, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol. 83 No. 1,
pp. 29-38.
Johnson, J.S. (2007), Organizational justice, moral ideology, and moral evaluation as antecedents
of moral intent, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.

Kahn, W.A. (1992), To be fully there: psychological presence at work, Human Relations, Vol. 45
No. 4, pp. 321-349.
Karatepe, O.M. (2011), Procedural justice, work engagement, and job outcomes: evidence
from Nigeria, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 20 No. 8,
pp. 855-878.
.H., Asare, A. and Brashear, T.G. (2007), Developing sales force
Kashyap, V., Puga Ribeiro, A
relationalism: the role of distributive and procedural justice, Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 235-245.
Kittredge, A. (2010), Predicting work and organizational engagement with work and personal
factors, Masters theses, Paper No. 3771, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.
Konovsky, M.A. (2000), Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business
organizations, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 489-511.
Konovsky, M.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1991), Perceived fairness of employee drug testing
as a predictor of employee attitudes and work performance, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 698-707.
Kressel, K. and Pruitt, D.G. (1989), Mediation Research: The Process and Effectiveness of
Third-Party Intervention, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lemons, M. and Danehower, V.C. (1996), Organizational justice and the glass ceiling:
the moderating role of gender schemas, Best Papers Proceedings, Academy of
Management, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, pp. 398-402.
Lemons, M.A. and Jones, C.A. (2000), Procedural justice in promotion decisions: using
perceptions of fairness to build employee commitment, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 268-280.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980), What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in social relationships, in Gregen, K., Greenberg, M. and Willis, R. (Eds), Social
Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 27-55.
Li, H. (2012), A study on the relationships among organizational justice, organizational
identification, and work engagement: evidence from the hi-tech service industries, paper
presented in International Joint Conference on Service Sciences by the Natural Science
Fund Committee of China, Shanghai, 26 May.
Li, S., Li, X. and Shi, K. (2010), The influence of procedure justice on work engagement:
the mediating role of organizational commitment, 2nd Symposium on Web Society, IEEE,
pp. 632-636.
Lind, A.E. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, New York, NY.
Lipponen, J., Olkkonen, M.E. and Myyry, L. (2004), Personal value orientation as a moderator in
the relationships between perceived organizational justice and its hypothesized
consequences, Social Justice Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 275-292.
Lockwood, N.R. (2007), Leveraging Employee Engagement for a Competitive Advantage, Society
for Human Resource Management, Alexandria, VA.
Llorens, S., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W. and Salanova, M. (2006), Testing the robustness of the job
demands-resources model, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 378-391.
McCain, S.C., Tsai, H. and Bellino, N. (2010), Organizational justice, employees ethical behavior,
and work satisfaction in the casino industry, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 992-1009.
McFarlin, D.B. and Sweeney, P.D. (1992), Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 626-637.

Employee
engagement

649

PR
43,4

650

McLean, G.N. (2009), The impact of organizational justice and work security on organizational
commitment exploring the mediating effect of trust in top management, masters thesis,
The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), The meaning of employee engagement, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
Maleki, H. and Taheri, L.M. (2012), Organizational justice: from theory to practice, Journal of
Basic and Applied Scientific Research, Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 10118-10123.
Malinen, S., Wright, S.L. and Cammock, P. (2013), What drives organisational engagement?
A case study on trust, justice perceptions and withdrawal attitudes, Evidence-based
HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 96-108.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), Job burnout, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 397-422.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), Integrating justice and social
exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-748.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work, Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 11-37.
Moorman, R.H. (1991), Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 845-855.
Muhammad, A.H. (2004), Procedural justice as mediator between participation in decision
making and organizational citizenship behavior, IJCM, Vol. 14 Nos 3/4, pp. 58-68.
Nabatchi, T., Bingham, B.L. and Good, D.H. (2007), Organizational justice and workplace
mediation: a six-factor model, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 148-174.
Nelson, D.L. and Simmons, B.L. (2003), Health psychology and work stress: a more positive
approach, in Quick, J.C. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), Handbook of Occupational Health
Psychology, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 97-119.
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 527-556.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Orlowska, A. (2011), The Mediating Effect of Psychological Empowerment, Perception of
Organizational Justice and Human Capital on the Relationship Between the Employees
Perception of HR Practices and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, Tilburg University,
Tilburg.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. and Williams, E. (1999), Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators
for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study, Journal of
Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 897-933.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method bias in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Rahim, M.A., Magner, N.R. and Shapiro, D.L. (2000), Do justice perceptions influence styles of
handling conflict with supervisors? What justice perceptions, precisely, International
Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 9-31.
Ram, P. and Prabhakar, V.G. (2011), The role of employee engagement in work-related
outcomes, Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 47-61.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), Affective commitment to the organization:
the contribution of perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 825-836.
Richman, A. (2006), Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?, Workspan,
Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 36-39.
Robbins, T.L., Summers, T.P., Miller, J.L. and Hendrix, W.H. (2000), Using the group value
model to explain the role of non instrumental justice in distinguishing the effects of
distributive and procedural justice, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 511-518.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004), The Drivers of Employee Engagement, Institute
for Employment Studies, Brighton.
Rothbard, N.P. (2001), Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and
family, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 655-684.
Saks, A.M. (2006), Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.
Saunders, M. and Thornhill, A. (2003), Organizational justice, trust, and the management of
change, Personnel Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 360-375.
Scandura, T.A. (1999), Rethinking leader member exchange: an organizational justice
perceptive, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study, Journal of organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2010), Defining and measuring work engagement: bringing clarity
to the concept, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work Engagement: A Handbook of
Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, pp. 10-24.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach, Journal
of Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Shaw, K. (2005), An engagement strategy process for communicators, Strategic Communication
Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 26-29.
Sheppard, B.H., Lewicki, R.J. and Minton, J.W. (1992), Organizational Justice: The Search for
Fairness in the Workplace, Lexington Books, New York, NY.
Shrivastava, A. and Purang, P. (2011), Employee perceptions of performance appraisals:
a comparative study on Indian banks, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 632-647.
Simpson, P. and Kaminski, M. (2007), Gender, organizational justice perceptions and union
organizing, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 57-72.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive,
procedural and interactional justice, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 434-443.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Latham, G.P. (1996), Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union:
a test of organizational justice theory, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 2,
pp. 161-169.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Latham, G.P. (1997), Leadership training in organizational justice to increase
citizenship behavior within a labor union: a replication, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50
No. 3, pp. 617-633.
Strom, D.L., Sears, K.L. and Kelly, K.M. (2013), Work engagement: the roles of organizational
justice and leadership style in predicting engagement among employees, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 1-12.

Employee
engagement

651

PR
43,4

652

Suliman, A. and Kathairi, M.A. (2013), Organizational justice, commitment and performance in
developing countries: the case of the UAE, Employee Relations, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 98-115.
Sweeney, P.D. and McFarlin, D.B. (1993), Workers evaluations of the ends and means:
an examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 23-40.
Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Tyler, T. and Bies, R.J. (1990), Beyond formal procedures: the interpersonal context of procedural
justice, in Carroll, J. (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 77-98.
Tyler, T.R. (1990), Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy and Compliance, Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT.
Tyler, T.R. and Caine, A. (1981), The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with
formal leaders, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 642-655.
Walster, E., Walster, G.W. and Berschied, E. (1978), Equity: Theory and Research, Allyn & Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Wang, X., Liao, J., Xia, D. and Chang, T. (2010), The impact of organizational justice on work
performance: mediating effects of organizational commitment and leader-member
exchange, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 660-677.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H. and Tetrick, L.E. (2002), The role of fair treatment and
rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 590-598.
Weiss, H.M., Suckow, K. and Cropanzano, R. (1999), Effects of justice conditions on discrete
emotions, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 786-794.
Welch, M. (2011), The evolution of the employee engagement concept: communication
implications, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 328-346.
Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A. and Werner, J.M. (1998), Managers as initiators of
trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy
behavior, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-530.
Further reading
Williams, S., Pitre, R. and Zainuba, M. (2002), Justice and organizational citizenship behavior
intentions: fair rewards versus fair treatment, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 142
No. 1, pp. 33-44.
Corresponding author
Dr Piyali Ghosh can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints