Daria Sarti

Submission title page
Employees’ engagement in human service organizations: The role of leader-member exchange and
organizational justice
Daria Sarti
University of Florence
Department of Economics and Management
Via delle Pandette 9
50127 FIRENZE
Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
Submission type: Refereed Paper
Keywords: Work Engagement, Leader-member exchange, Organizational Justice
Copyright © 2014 Daria Sarti
1
Employees’ engagement in human service organizations: The role of leader-member exchange
and organizational justice
Abstract
Research on organizational justice has increased significantly over recent decades. The rationale
for growing interest is that the perception of organizational justice—that is, fairness of treatment—
among workers has been related to a number of positive organizational outcomes. However, further
attention must be devoted to study the mechanisms that could explain such interactions.
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the impact of organizational justice perception on
employees’ engagement and the moderating role played by the quality of leader-member exchange
(LMX) in the relationship between organizational justice perception and engagement.
In this article, social exchange theory is employed as a theoretical framework to investigate the
connection between organizational justice, LMX and engagement.
By studying 314 workers of 12 human service organizations in Italy, the present paper shows that
employees’ engagement is positively affected by organizational justice perception. Furthermore, the
LMX has a direct effect on employees’ engagement and a moderating role in the relationship
between organizational justice and work engagement.
Keywords: work engagement, organizational justice, leader-member exchange
1. Introduction
In today’s highly competitive business environment, firms need employees who are able to respond,
adapt, and change when facing new challenges. The commitment of individual employees,
therefore, is an important issue for those organizations where the main source of competitive
advantage is their human capital (Kleinman et al., 2001). Over the years, managers and practitioners
have devoted considerable attention to looking for ways that would enhance employee contribution
towards organizational performance and to the understanding of the strength of an individual’s
commitment to the organization.
Research has demonstrated that employees’ engagement is a predictor of many positive behavioral
outcomes at work—such as, organizational citizen behaviors (Rich et al., 2010), enhanced overall
performance (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008), increased business unit performance (Harter et al.,
2002), service-related outcomes and client satisfaction (Salanova et al., 2005; Bakker and
Demerouti, 2008), and in-role and extra-role behavior (Schaufeli et al., 2006; Macey and Schneider,
2008).
Literature on organizational justice offers important contributions in pointing out the determinants
of individual positive outcomes at work. In recent decades, the concept of organizational justice—
that is, the individual’s perception of the fairness of treatment received from an organization—has
become an increasingly studied subject among social scientists (Greenberg, 1987; Colquitt, 2001;
Cropanzano and Stein, 2009).
Many studies have addressed the relationship between organizational justice perception and
individuals’ positive attitudes, behaviors and performance in organizations (Cohen-Charash and
Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano and Randall, 1993; Alexander and Rudeman,
1987). Among these, support was found for a positive relation between fairness perception among
service workers and excellence in service provision (e.g. Bettencourt and Brown, 1997). Despite
this, there are still research gaps with respect to how organizational justice perception affects the
actions and behaviors of individuals in the organizations for which they work. In this sense, only a
2
small number of contributions are concerned with the role played by the quality of leader-member
exchange (LMX) in the relation between organizational justice and work performance (Masterson et
al., 2000; Rupp and Cropanzano, 2002). Therefore, the purpose of the article is to analyze the
relationship between organizational justice and employees’ engagement in service organizations
while considering the moderating effect of the quality of LMX. This article suggests that LMX
could represent an effective organizational lever useful for implementing the work environment
fairness perception and, in turn, the individual and organizational outcomes.
In this study, the literature on employees’ engagement, organizational justice and LMX is reviewed.
Hypotheses are developed to examine, first, the role played by organizational justice and, second,
how LMX might influence the impact of organizational justice perception on employees’
engagement. At the end, the hypotheses are tested using a hierarchical regression analysis, including
the analysis of the direct impact and of the moderating effect of LMX on employees’ engagement.
2. Organizational justice and employees’ engagement
Organizational justice has received considerable attention from researchers and has long been
recognized as a basic requirement for organizational functioning and workers’ satisfaction. The
widespread acknowledgment of the importance of this issue within an organization is witnessed by
the long tradition in theories applied to understanding this phenomena and its relation with
organizational behaviors (Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1990).
The concept of organizational justice is commonly described by two categories, which are the
distributive and the procedural dimensions (Moorman, 1991).
Distributive justice was the first type of fairness introduced in the sixties within the equity theory
debate (Adams, 1965; Homans, 1961). The equity theory describes the perception of fairness about
the outcomes one receives (e.g. pay). The procedural justice concept, which was introduced in the
late seventies (Thibaut and Walker, 1975; Leventhal, 1980), concerns the perceptions of individuals
regarding the fairness of procedures governing decision processes. While distributive justice
judgment is based on resource and economic motives and is often considered a function of the
economic value of the outcome (De Cremer, 2005), procedural justice is based on resource, socioemotional and relational motives (Tyler, 1994; Cropanzano and Ambrose, 2001) and is often seen
as linked to relational or self-relevant motivations (De Cremer, 2005).
Two other dimensions—interactional justice (Bies and Moag, 1986) and informational justice
(Greenberg, 1993)—were introduced. However, many studies have found consistent support for the
two-factor conceptualization of the construct of distributive and procedural justice (Colquitt, 2001;
Greenberg, 1990; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992; Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993).
In his works, Greenberg (1990; 1993; 1987) suggested that organizational justice research might
potentially explain many organizational behaviors.
Some contributions suggest that procedural justice is sometimes stronger than is distributive justice
in predicting employee reactions (see, for example, Folger and Knovsky, 1989). However, many
studies indicate that both aspects of justice—i.e. distributive and procedural—may add to the
prediction of employee reactions (Sweeney and McFarlin, 1997; Alexander and Ruderman, 1987;
Fields et al., 2000). Furthermore, in contrast with other evidence supporting the absolute relevance
of procedural justice in predicting individual positive behaviors, Greenberg (1987) demonstrated in
his experiment that procedural justice positively affects the general fairness perceptions of
individuals only when monetary rewards are low. In other cases (e.g. high level of monetary
rewards), the interaction is not significant.
Many studies have investigated the relationship between organizational justice and employees’
work outcomes (Alexander and Ruderman, 1987; Aquino, 1995). Evidence shows that an
employee’s perception of organizational justice affects his or her attitude towards the organization
(McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992) and extra-role behaviors (Moorman et al., 1998; Greenberg, 1990;
3
Lind and Tyler, 1988). If organizational justice is perceived, individuals tend to be more satisfied
and committed to their organization. Authors found that employee perceptions of justice were
negatively related to the intention to quit (Aryee et al., 2002), and positively related to job
satisfaction (Zainalipur et al., 2010) and citizenship behaviors (Organ and Ryan, 1995; Moorman,
1991; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Furthermore, a small number of studies consider the role of
organizational justice in predicting work engagement (Inoue et al., 2010; Strom et al., 2014).
According to previous studies on human service workers (Glisson and Durick, 1988), there is a
dominance of organizational characteristics in predicting individual behaviors, when compared to
others such as job and individual characteristics, which show no relevant interaction. Despite this,
little attention has been devoted to organizational characteristics as predictors of individual
behaviors. Therefore, in this study, I want to verify the complementary role played by both,
procedural and distributive justice, in predicting affective commitment. That is:
Hp1: Employees’ engagement is positively influenced by procedural justice perception.
Hp2: Employees’ engagement is positively influenced by distributive justice perception.
3. LMX as predictor and moderator of employees’ engagement
Many organizational studies highlight the importance of leaders’ characters and behaviors for the
performance and success of firms in increasingly complex environments (Darcy and Kleiner, 1991;
Hennessey, 1998) and for the positive outcomes of subordinates (Rowold and Rohmann, 2009).
Starting from considerations about the organizational role (Katz and Kahn, 1978), the quality of the
LMX theoretical framework is based on the mechanism of reciprocity in which employees who
experienced high LMX reciprocate with a greater expenditure of time and effort, higher
commitment, and higher levels of performance (Blau, 1964).
According to LMX theory, because of the limited resources and time to devote to each employee,
supervisors develop different interactions with the singular members of their working group. In
particular, the leader develops close social relations with a small number of subordinates—that is,
the ‘in-group’.
The better the quality of the LMX, the higher is the amount of exchange of effort, resources and
support between members and supervisor. In-group members benefit from more freedom, better job
assignments, trust, respect, support and rewards compared to employees in the ‘out-group’ that
comprises those involved in low-LMX relationships.
Research over the last three decades has included wide-ranging studies on the outcomes of LMX,
such as employee turnover, increase in employee performance, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (see, for example: Ansari et al., 2007).
However, no previous studies consider LMX as a possible antecedent of work engagement and this
could represent an interesting gap that Human Resource Development debate could cover.
Therefore, I posit that:
Hp3: LMX is positively related to work engagement.
The organizational justice debate demonstrates a relation between leaders’ behaviors and fairness
perception among employees. As it happens in an economic exchange, so too in social exchange
theory (Homans, 1958; Emerson, 1962; Blau,1964), it is assumed that people ‘participate’ in a
social exchange because they think that their effort is justified by the return. If supervisors empower
employees, the latter feel valued and reciprocate with positive organizational behavior (Vanyperen
et al., 1999). Indeed, employee perception of recognition by their supervisor leads to satisfaction
and, in turn, to greater productivity (Cotton et al., 1988).
4
Recent contributions have investigated the importance of social exchange variables, such as LMX,
and their relation with organizational justice perception and work behaviors (Scandura 1999;
Masterson et al., 2000; Rupp and Cropanzano, 2002).
The quality of LMX may play a critical role in affecting the perceptions of individuals regarding
fairness within organizations. High-LMX perception by in-group members leads to a high degree of
mutually positive effects, loyalty, contributions, and obligation to the exchange of professional
respect and trust (Dienesch and Liden, 1986; Liden and Maslyn, 1998; Schriesheim et al., 1999).
LMX quality was also found by many authors as being positively related to positive behaviors
among employees, such as affective commitment (Schriessheim et al., 1992; Lidenet al., 2000;
Wayne et al., 2002). At the same time, employees with high LMX receive more positive “rewards”
compared to other members who experience low LMX. Therefore, people receiving such favorable
outcomes tend to consider their return as fair (e.g. Greenberg, 1990; Leventhal, 1980).
Most works investigate the mediating role of LMX—that is, the “how” and “why” of the
relationship between the independent variable and the outcome variable. Here, the moderating
effect is explored to understand the circumstances that strengthen or weaken the association. As a
result, I consider that the quality of LMX may positively affect the relation between distributive
justice perception among employees and work engagement.
According to some studies, procedural fairness is better related than is distributive justice to
variables such as trust in the supervisor (Dailey and Kirk, 1992). Furthermore, previous studies in
contexts where leaders had limited roles in influencing individual outcomes found no relation
between supervisor perception and distributive justice (Andrews and Kacmar, 2001; Flaherty and
Pappas, 2000). A recent study demonstrated that the positive relationship that both dimensions of
organizational justice (distributive and procedural justice) share with work engagement would be
higher among employees experiencing low transactional leadership than among employees
perceiving high transactional leadership. In this sense, a moderation effect of LMX would be
predictable with respect to the relation between procedural justice and work engagement.
The quality of LMX also influences the perception of employees regarding procedural justice.
According to previous empirical evidence, the quality of LMX may affect, in an indirect manner,
the perceived procedural justice. Some studies have demonstrated that procedural justice is
positively related to supervisor support (Dailey and Kirk, 1992; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993),
perceived organizational support, interpersonal aid (Moorman et al., 1998; Schminke et al., 2000)
and trust in the supervisor (Fulk et al., 1985).
Support and guidance given by leaders build loyalty between leaders and followers. Indeed, under
conditions of high quality of LMX, factors that might be perceived as harming fairness perceptions
may be less negatively weighted than when high-quality LMX is absent. In this sense, I posit that:
Hp4: LMX will moderate the relationship between procedural justice and work engagement in such
a way that the relationship will be stronger at higher levels of LMX than at lower levels of LMX.
According to many scholars, distributive fairness involves a more “personal outcome” and is more
effective than is procedural justice in predicting personal outcomes, like personal job satisfaction,
pay level and job satisfaction (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992; Konovsky and Folger, 1987; Folger
and Knovsky, 1989; Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993; Howard, 1999). Therefore, considering the
dyadic nature of LMX, the direct emotional gratification at the basis of socio-relational exchange
and the actual individuals’ willingness to reciprocate involved in this interaction, an effect of LMX
in strengthening the relation between distributive justice perception and employees’ engagement is
suggested. Thus, the following hypothesis is presented:
Hp5: LMX will moderate the relationship between distributive justice and work engagement in such
a way that the relationship will be stronger at higher levels of LMX than at lower levels of LMX.
5
In figure 1, a brief path diagram representing the relationships among the factors is shown (i.e.
LMX, organizational justice and employees’ engagement). The hypotheses are depicted in the
figure by the causal arrows.
Figure 1: Path diagram of the model’s relationships
Leader -member Exchange
Hp5
Procedural Justice
Distributive Justice
Hp4
Hp3
Hp1
Work
Engagement
Hp2
4. Empirical setting and research methodology
4.1. The empirical setting
This study was conducted among 314 human service workers in 12 human service organizations.
Human service organizations are organizations whose aim is to provide human service, such as
elderly, child and handicapped care, and mental health support.
Organizations in this sector provide a complex service, for which the human component of
employees is determinative in terms of both, their specific care skills and their relational attitudes.
This makes the service quality highly dependent on the quality and intensity of work and, in turn,
on the commitment of individuals to the organization. Particularly for this sector, individual
performance at work is suggested as being strongly linked to the intrinsic and relational aspects of
job satisfaction (Leete, 2000; De Gieter et al., 2008). On the other hand, traditional economic
incentives could be ineffective for this kind of workforce.
According to the authors, employees in human service organizations are reported to have low levels
of satisfaction, status and wages when compared with other types of organizations (Glisson and
Durick, 1988; Simonazzi, 2009; Irpet, 2008). Furthermore, their workforce is attracted by the
‘mirage’ of other labor markets (less stressful, better paid or more secure). In sum, these
organizations face high levels of turnover (Barak et al., 2001). Therefore, an understanding of the
contributing factors and organizational conditions within the human services are perceived as
especially important (Glisson and Durick, 1988).
In Italy, in the 90’s, the progressive contraction of the welfare state model was accompanied by an
expansion of private human service providers. Among these, non-profit organizations that are social
cooperatives (SCs) are commonly recognized for their role in providing social service and filling
the gap left by the public sector. Currently, SCs show themselves to be a lively context with
considerable importance in the national economy by employing approximately 2% of the total
active Italian population and showing a steady increase in the employment growth rate when
compared to for-profit or public organizations (Unioncamere-Ministero del Lavoro, 2008).
The 12 organizations analyzed for the purpose of the present study are social cooperatives, whose
aim is “to produce or exchange goods or services of social utility” and which are “strongly
integrated in their local environment […] and supply crucial services including social, educational
6
and work integration” (Costa et al., 2012: 118). These organizations, which currently face an
increasing complexity of competition—for example, from the private sector (Alexander 2000)—are
characterized by a strong organizational identity that is strongly affected by the international
cooperative principles stated by the International Cooperative Alliance (e.g. democratic control,
distribution of the surplus to the members in proportion to their transactions, promotion of
education). Due to these contingencies, in order to be highly oriented toward service provision,
social cooperatives often have flat structures and count on the critical role played by “coordinators”
of the single service provided (e.g. home residence and domiciliary service).
4.2 Participants
The data used in this study were gathered in 2009 by administering a questionnaire to the operators
of 12 social cooperatives in Italy. The 12 SCs are engaged in different human services (i.e. elderly,
child, handicapped and minors care). All the social cooperatives devoted to education and care
services in the Italian region of Tuscany were contacted via telephone and email based on the local
registry of SCs. A sample of 150 SCs from a total of approximately 300 SCs was randomly
selected. Out of these, 15 of the SCs contacted declared to join the research project, and of these, 12
actually participated.
The questionnaire administered to the SCs’ workers included questions on the respondents’
background, their perceptions of organizational justice, LMX and affective commitment. The
questionnaire was administered anonymously with the support of the management of the
cooperatives, under the coordination of the author. The response rate was varied, consistent with
previous research published in similar work environments (Pisanti et al., 2008), from 35 to 50% of
operators depending on the cooperatives. The total number of returned questionnaires was 330, out
of which 314 were fully filled and used in this study.
The respondents were, on average, 37.5 years old (SD = 9.74) and with an average tenure of 5.5
years (SD = 4.71). Details of the demographic profile of the sample are reported in table 1.
Table 1: Demographic profile of the sample
Demographic variables
N
Percent
N
290
Gender
Male
Female
Education
Mandatory school
Professional diploma
High school diploma
Graduate
Post-graduate
Job level
Assisting jobs
Care workers and practical
nurses
Educators
Managers
Kind of job
31
259
10.7%
89.3%
299
93
19
116
64
7
31.1%
6.4%
38.8%
21.4%
2.3%
280
48
112
17.1%
35.7%
99
21
31.5%
6.7%
300
7
Permanent job
Temporary job
226
74
75.3%
24.7%
289
Full-time
Part-time
88
201
29.9%
70.1%
4.3 Measures
The questionnaire was based on scales already validated in previous studies in the literature. The
summated variables were formed and scale reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. All
coefficients were above the 0.70 criterion (Nunnally, 1978).
Work Engagement: To measure work engagement, the nine-items shortened version (Schaufeli et
al., 2006; UWES-9) of the original 17 items of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) were
used (Schaufeli et al., 2002). This shortened version revealed acceptable psychometric proprieties
and “can be used in studies on positive organizational behavior” (Schaufeli et al., 2006, p. 701).
The UWES-9 was considered as an overall measure of the construct and it contains three items for
each of the three dimensions of work engagement, which are vigor, dedication and absorption.
Some examples of questions are “I am bursting with energy at work” and “I am enthusiastic about
my job”. Items were scored on a seven-point frequency rating scale ranging from 0 (“never”) to 3
(“a couple of times a month”) to 6 (“daily”). Items were taken from the Italian validated translation
of the scale by Pisanti et al. 2008.
Organizational justice: The scale used for distributive justice explored how fair organizational
rewards are perceived in comparison to workers’ contribution (e.g. stress, effort, competencies and
experience). An example of a question is “I am fairly rewarded considering effort.” This six-item
scale by Howard (1999) had an alpha of 0.914. Response categories range from 1 (“not at all fair”)
to 5 (“very much fair”).
The second independent variable, procedural justice, explored how workers feel about flows of
information, involvement and other procedures within the organization. The alpha for this four-item
scale by McFarlin and Sweney (1992) is 0.807. Items were scored on a five-point response scale
called the distributive justice index. Respondents were asked to indicate, for example, the extent to
which the general procedures used to communicate performance feedback were perceived as fair.
Moderation variable: LMX was assessed with a measure developed by Scrandura and Graen
(1984). The seven-item scale (e.g. “How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor
understands your problems and needs”) had an alpha of 0.934. Items were scored on a five-point
scale ranging from 1 (minimum) to 5 (maximum).
5. Data analysis and results
The Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS version 20) was used to analyze the data. The
demographic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Hierarchical regression analysis was
used to test the hypothesis.
A check was conducted to determine which of the intended control variables (gender, age, years in
the organization, job level and with children) should be used in the actual regression analyses
claiming that there should be a correlation with the outcome variable.
Based on the analysis, I stopped at using only gender as the demographic variable for the present
analysis since it appears to be significant.
8
Descriptive statistics and the correlation of items were explored. See table 2.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and the Pearson Correlations.
1. Work Engagement
2. LMX
3. Distributive Justice
4. Procedural Justice
Mean
5.63
3.96
2.97
3.02
SD
1.04
1.07
1.07
0.96
1
1
.40**
.27**
.36**
2
3
4
1
.35**
.56**
1
.55**
1
Table 2 shows that the correlation between both dimensions of organizational justice (i.e.
procedural justice and distributive justice) and work engagement are positive and statistically
significant. The findings demonstrate that as both procedural and distributive justice increase, work
engagement also increases.
The results are coherent with previous studies, which show a sizable correlation between procedural
and distributive justice (Tyler, 1994). However, prior studies suggest that the two measures are
independent constructs (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992). Furthermore, previous evidence highlights
strong correlation between procedural justice and LMX. Despite this, the two constructs were
considered as independent (see, for example: Wang et al., 2010).
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis for the dependent variable was carried out to test the
hypothesis. In order to assess the potential threat of collinearity, we estimated the variance inflation
factors (VIFs) and found a VIF that was greater below the cut-off point of 10 (Hair et al., 2006),
thereby mitigating concerns of multicollinearity.
Hierarchical regression analysis was used to investigate the hypothesis, including the moderating
effect of LMX on the organizational justice-work engagement relationship. Following Aiken and
West (1991), we have mean-centered the independent variables before generating interaction terms.
This enables better interpretation of the findings by reducing multicollinearity and other problems
(see, for example: Howell, 2002). The missing values were replaced by means.
Control variables were analyzed first to control for their effect on work engagement. Only gender
was found to be a significant demographic variable in predicting work engagement (r = .19, p <
.01). Therefore, it was added in the equation at the first step. In table 3, the hierarchical regression is
presented.
9
Table 3. Hierarchical regression analysis using work engagement as the dependent variable.
Predictors
Step1
Step2
Step3
Step4
Step 5
Gender
.18**
.17**
.16**
.15**
.15**
.31***
.14*
.16*
.12*
.28***
.16*
.12*
.30***
.16*
.12*
.34***
Procedural Justice
Distributive Justice
LMX
LMX * Procedural Justice
LMX * Distributive Justice
R2
.53
.14*
.03**
.19***
.25***
.25***
.26***
Note. *p < .05 **p < .01. ***p < .001. B values are standardized.
The first step with gender used as a control variable was followed by a block entry procedure of
organizational justice variables—i.e. procedural and distributive justice. These variables entered in
the model explained 19.2% of the variation in work engagement. Multiple regression analysis
testing a main effects model yielded a significant and positive regression coefficient for procedural
justice on work engagement ( = .31, p < .001) and for distributive justice on work engagement (
= .14, p < .05).
The results support Hp1 and Hp2, predicting that both procedural and distributive justice would be
positively related to work engagement. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that as both procedural
and distributive justice increase, work engagement also increases.
Hp3 predicted that LMX would be positively related to work engagement. The results support this
hypothesis. The moderator—i.e. the LMX—added at the third step showed a significant and
positive regression coefficient on work engagement ( = .28, p < .01), explaining significantly,
together with the other variables already included in the model, 24.5% of the variation in work
engagement. In this step, the association between the two dimensions of organizational justice and
work engagement were still statistically significant whilst the beta coefficients decreased.
The increase in R-square was statistically significant in all steps demonstrating that the variables
added in the model enhanced the work engagement in a positive way.
For the two subsequent steps, the two multiplicative terms were entered as moderators to examine
the moderating effect of LMX on the organizational justice-work engagement relationship.
Table 3 shows that the interaction between LMX and distributive justice was significant and
positive on work engagement ( = .14, p < .05) and explained 1.5% of the increase in the variance
explained for work engagement (R = 26%, p < .001). When the multiplicative term was entered into
the regression equation, the increase in R was statistically significant (p < .01), which indicates that
there was a moderating effect and significant association of LMX with respect to the distributive
justice-work engagement relationship. Thus, this supports hypothesis 5.
Furthermore, the results in table 3 demonstrate that the interaction between LMX and procedural
justice was not significant on work engagement ( = .53; p >.05). Therefore, it does not support
hypothesis 4.
The final models of hierarchical regression analysis showed that approximately 26% of the
variation in the individuals’ engagement was explained by procedural justice, distributive justice,
the moderator, and the interaction between distributive justice and the moderator. Only a
background variable—that is, gender—had a significant association with the dependent variable in
all steps of the regression (see table 3).
10
6. Discussion
Our aim was to explore, first, how employees perceive the two dimensions of organizational
justice—i.e. distributive and procedural—and, second, how the organizational justice perceptions of
employees and LMX are connected to work engagement in human service organizations. Finally,
we wished to discover if LMX moderates the relationship between work engagement and the two
dimensions of organizational justice.
Contradictory to previous studies, the predominant role of procedural justice in explaining work
engagement was not found; rather, even distributive justice had an important role in explaining that
positive behavioral outcome in the context of the analysis. Overall, the results indicated that both
dimensions of organizational justice are positively connected to work engagement and the one does
not exclude or reduce the impact of the other in explaining the dependent variable.
Moreover, LMX too was significantly and positively related to work engagement.
In particular, the model tested explained a relatively high proportion of variance of work
engagement as explained by organizational justice and LMX highlighting the evidence that these
represent critical dimensions in the explanation regarding individual behaviors and outcomes in the
organization.
In this sense, this evidence provides further insights into the importance of such a construct and of
the theoretical perspectives of social exchange as a sound framework for explaining virtuous
behaviors in organizations and a useful tool for managers in supporting the improvement of
organizational performance through the contributions of individuals.
In the end, this analysis tries to enrich the under-researched area of the moderation effect of LMX
on the relation between organizational justice and work engagement. In contrast with previous
studies focusing only on the mediating role of LMX, in this study, the use of moderation suggests
how to weigh out an effective instrument, such as individual-supervisor relations to increase
individuals’ outcomes.
Coherently with previous evidence (see, for example: Lee, 2001) and in contradiction with other
studies (Bhal and Ansari, 2007), a relation was found between LMX and distributive justice. A
rationale for this result could be found in the specific employees and organizational contexts under
study. This result is in contrast with the study by Bhal and Ansari (2007) among professionals in
software companies. In this context, a close relation between members and the leader is very close
due to the flat structure that characterizes these kinds of organizations—i.e. social cooperatives (De
Cooman et al., 2011).
A moderating effect of LMX on just one of the two dimensions of organizational justice—i.e.
distributive justice—was demonstrated. Such a result seems in contrast with previous research,
according to which, trust in the leader is a predictor of procedural justice, while also considering
that LMX reminds one of the idea of interactional justice, which is sometimes seen as a part of
procedural justice. Hence, it was expected to be more connected to the concept of procedural
justice. In the relation between employee perceptions of distributive justice and their engagement, a
close interaction with the leader (i.e. LMX) strengthens the relation.
Many contributions studying organizational justice consider distributive justice to be based on
resource and economic motives, and functional to the economic value of the outcome (De Cremer,
2005). On the other hand, procedural justice is based on resource, socio-emotional and relational
motives (Tyler, 1994; Cropanzano and Ambrose, 2001) and is often seen as linked to relational or
self-relevant motivations (De Cremer, 2005). However, our findings among highly intrinsically
motivated workers is apparently in contrast with an interpretation of distributive justice as only
driven by the transactional orientation of individuals. This result could be interpreted as a need for
an effective coherence between a strong participative and fair culture and the perception of fairness
in distributing organizational resources in order to increase the contribution of individuals through
their engagement.
11
This evidence could offer a stimulus for considering from another perspective, the importance of
distributive justice as probably a matter of a necessary coherence between actual organizational
behavior in terms of resource allocation and the organizational values as they are stated. One
question could rise for further investigations over distributive justice being the very basis of trust in
an organization.
7. Implications, limitations and future research
This study has some implications for both research and practice. As regards theory and research,
our findings contribute to the literature on organizational justice, LMX and work engagement, and
attempt to shed further light on the relation between organizational justice and work engagement.
The hypotheses were derived from an integration of theoretical considerations on LMX and
organizational justice theory, in conjunction with social exchange perspectives and work
engagement. Thus, one contribution of this article is to build on an integration of these perspectives
that is rarely taken into consideration simultaneously.
As a practical implication, the paper confirms the importance of organizational fairness perception
on the positive behavioral outcomes of individuals at work. However, it also adds further evidence,
highlighting the importance of distributive justice as a critical factor for work engagement.
LMX is shown to be a potentially useful lever for answering to the need for a committed workforce
in a sector characterized by service specificities and high levels of environment complexity. Special
attention should be given, therefore, also within the Human Resource Development debate, to
improving the leader’s ability to relate to members for boosting the organizational justice
perception and, subsequently, work engagement. Our results demonstrate the existence of a not-toocostly organizational mechanism that is investing in the quality of the relation between leader and
members, for making people more engaged at work. In this sense, leaders should be trained in
managing work groups, through an effective and aware use of the “lever” of LMX. For example,
leaders could offer the opportunity for closer relationships to all work group members in an initial
stage. Leaders could also assess periodically whether to offer in-group roles to out-group members.
Scandura (1999) has suggested that “the leaders' offering of in-group tasks and benefits to all
members has clear ethical (and perhaps legal) implications.” Specific attention should also be given
to veterans (Sarti and Hulkko Nyman, 2013).
Like other studies in the social sciences, this analysis also has some limitations that could stimulate
future research. First, the study is cross-sectional. Second, the variables were measured using a
common method and source. Consequently, there may be some systematic bias (common method
variance) when we ask the same respondent about LMX, organizational justice perception and their
work engagement. Third, the context of our study is Italian non-profit service organizations and the
results must be interpreted accordingly.
This raises two further questions mainly related to the national and organizational culture: 1) What
would be the findings in other countries? 2) Would the findings remain the same if this study were
conducted in other sectors (i.e. public sector and for profit) and other professions?
A longitudinal approach would also be advisable. This would enable the researchers to evaluate the
extent to which changes in LMX or organizational justice perceptions result in changes in work
engagement.
12
References
Adams, J. S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz L. (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Psychology, New York: Academic Press, (pp. 267-299).
Alexander, S., Ruderman, M. (1987), “The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organization behavior”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 177-198.
Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., (2001), “Discriminating among organizational politics, justice,
and support”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 347–366.
Ansari, M. A., Hung, D. K. M., Aafaqi, R. (2007), “Leader-member exchange and attitudinal
outcomes: role of procedural justice climate”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 28, No.8, pp. 690–709.
Aquino, K. (1995). “Relationships among pay inequity, perceptions of procedural justice, and
organizational citizenship”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 8, pp.21-33.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., Chen, Z. X. (2002), “Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social Exchange model“, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 267-285.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career
development international, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 209-223.
Barak, M. E. M., Nissly, J. A., Levin, A. (2001), “Antecedents to retention and turnover among
child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from past
research? A review and metanalysis”, Social service review, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 625-661.
Howell, D. C. (2002), Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.), Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
Bettencourt, L. A., Brown, S. W. (1997), “Contact employees: Relationships among workplace
fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, No. 1,
pp. 39–61.
Bhal, K. T., Ansari, M. A. (2007), “Leader-member exchange-subordinate outcomes relationship:
role of voice and justice”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.
20-35.
Bies, R. J., Moag, J. S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”, in
Lewicki R. J., Sheppard, B. H., Bazerman, M. H. (Eds.), Research on Negotiations in
Organizations, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, (pp. 43-55).
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.
Cohen-Charash, Y., Spector, P. E. (2001), “The Role of Justice in Organizations: A MetaAnalysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86, No. 2, pp. 278321.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a
measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., 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.
Costa, E., Andreaus, M., Carini, C., Carpita, M. (2012), “Exploring the efficiency of Italian social
cooperatives by descriptive and principal component analysis”, Service Business, Vol. 6,
pp.117–136.
Cotton, J., Vollrath, D., Froggatt, K., Lengnick-Hall, M., Jennings, K. (1988), “Employee
participation: diverse forms and different outcomes”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13,
No. 1, pp. 8-22.
Cropanzano, R., Randall, M. (1993), “Justice in the workplace: A historical review”, in
Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource
management, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum (pp 3-20).
13
Cropanzano, R., Ambrose, M. L. (2001), “Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than
you think: a monistic perspective and a research agenda”, in: Greenberg J., Cropanzano R. (Eds.)
Advances in Organizational Justice, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, (pp 119-151).
Cropanzano, R., Stein, J.H. (2009), “Organizational justice and behavioral ethics: Promises and
prospects”, Behavioral Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 193-233.
Dailey, R. C., 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.
Darcy, T., Kleiner, B. H. (1991), “Leadership for Change in a Turbulent Environment”, Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 12–16.
De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., Jegers, M. (2011), “A cross-sector comparison of
motivation-related concepts in for-profit and not-for-profit service organizations”, Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 296-317.
De Cremer, D. (2005), “Procedural and distributive justice effects moderated by organizational
identification“, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 4-13.
De Gieter, S., De Cooman, R., Pepermans, R., Jegers, M. (2008), “Manage trough rewards, not only
through pay: Establishing the psychological reward satisfaction scale”, in: Vartiainen, M.,
Antoni, C., Baeten, X., Hakonen, N., Lucas, R., Thierry, H. (Eds.), Reward management – Facts
and trends in Europe, Pabst Science Publishers, (pp. 97-117).
Dienesch, R. M., Liden, R. C. (1986), “Leader-Member Exchange Model of Leadership: A Critique
and Further Development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 618-634.
Emerson, R. (1962), “Power-Dependence Relations”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 27, No.
1, pp. 31-41.
Fields, D., Pang, M., Chiu, C. (2000), “Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
employee outcomes in Hong Kong”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp.
547-562.
Flaherty, K. E., Pappas, J. M. (2000), “The role of trust ion salesperson-sales manager
Relationships“, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 20, pp. 271-278.
Folger, R., 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.
Fulk, J., Brief, A. P., Barr, S. H. (1985), “Trust-in-supervisor and perceived fairness and accuracy
of performance evaluations“, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 301-313.
Glisson, C., Durick, M. (1988), “Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in
human service organizations“, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 33, pp. 61–81.
Greenberg, J. (1987), “A taxonomy of organizational justice theories”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 12, pp. 9-22.
Greenberg, J. (1990), “Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 16, 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, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (pp. 79-103).
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderons, R.E. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis (6th Edition)
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., 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, p. 268.
Hennessey, J. T. (1998), “ ‘Reinventing’ Government: Does Leadership Make the Difference?”.
Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 6, pp. 522–532.
Homans, G. C. (1958), “Social Behavior as Exchange”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63,
No. 6, pp. 597-606
Homans, G. C. (1961), “Social Behavior”, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
14
Howard, L. W. (1999), “Validity evidence for measure of procedural/distributive justice and
pay/benefit satisfaction”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 135-147.
Inoue, A., Kawakami, N., Ishizaki, M., Shimazu, A., Tsuchiya, M., Tabata, M., & Kuroda, 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.
IRPET (2008), Le imprese cooperative nel sistema economico della Toscana: Quarto Rapporto.
Firenze: EDIFIR-Edizioni.
Katz , D., Kahn, R. L. (1978), The social psychology of organizations (2nd edition), New York:.
Wiley.
Kleinman, G., Siegel, P. H., Eckstein, C. (2001), “Mentoring and learning: the case of CPA firms”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 22–34.
Konovsky, M. A., Folger, R. (1987), “Relative effects of procedural and distributive justice on
employee attitudes“, Representative Research in Social Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 15-24.
Lee, J. (2001), “Leader-member exchange, perceived organizational justice, and cooperative
communication”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 574-589.
Leete, L. (2000), “Wage equity and employee motivation in nonprofit and for-profit organizations”,
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 43, pp. 423-446.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory?”, in Gergen, L. J., Greenberg,
M. S., Weiss, R. H. (Eds.), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. New York:
Plenum, (pp. 27-55).
Liden, R. C., Maslyn, J. M. (1998), “Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical
assessment through scale development”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24, pp. 43–72.
Lind, E. A., Tyler, T. R. (1988), The social psychology of procedural justice, New York: Plenum.
Linden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Sparrow R. T. (2000), “An examination of the mediating role of
psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and
work outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 3, pp. 407–416.
Macey, W. H., Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement“, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 3-30.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., Taylor, M. S. (2000), “Integrating justice and social
exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationship”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 738–748.
McFarlin, D. B., Sweeney, P. D. (1992), “Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.
35, pp. 626–637.
Moorman, R. H. (1991), “The relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behavior: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 845-855.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., Niehoff, B. P. (1998), “Does Perceived Organizational Support
Mediate the Relationship between Procedural Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior?”,
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 351-357.
Niehoff, B. P., 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, pp. 527-556.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978), Psychometric theory (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Organ, D. W., Ryan, M. (1995), “A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors
of organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 775-802.
Pisanti, R., Paplomatas, A., Bertini, M. (2008), “Misurare le dimensioni positive nel lavoro in
sanità: un contributo all'adattamento italiano della UWES - Utrecht Work Engagement Scale”,
Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia, Vol. 30, pp. 111-119.
15
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., Bachrach, D. G. (2000), “Organizational
citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 513-563.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010), “Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on
job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 617-635.
Rowold, J., Rohmann, A. (2009), “Relationships between leadership styles and followers' emotional
experience and effectiveness in the Voluntary Sector”, Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 270- 286.
Rupp, D. E., Cropanzano, R. (2002), “The mediating effects of social Exchange relationships in
predictingworkplaceoutcomes from multifoci organizational justice”, Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 925–946.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., Peiró, J. M. (2005), “Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate”,
Journal of applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 6, pp. 1217.
Sarti, D., Hullko-Nyman, K. (2013), “How job resources affect work engagement. A comparison
between newcomers and long-stayers”, Proceedings of the 4th European Reward Management
Conference (RMC 2013), Managing Rewards: what can we learn from a comparative approach?
Brussels, 2nd-3rd December 2013.
Scandura, T. A. (1999), “Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice
perspective”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 25–40.
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B. (1984), “Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status
on the effects of a leadership intervention”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 428–
436.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., 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.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M., (2006), “The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire. A cross national study”, Education and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 701-716.
Schminke, M., Ambrose, A. L., Cropanzano, R. S. (2000), “The effect of organizational structure
on perceptions of procedural fairness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 294- 304.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Cogliser, C. C. (1999), “Leader-member exchange (LMX)
research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 63–113.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., Scandura, T. A., Tepper, B. J. (1992), “Development and
preliminary validation of a short scale to measure leader-member exchange (LMX) in
organizations”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 52, pp. 135–147.
Simonazzi, A. (2009), “Care regimes and national employment models”, Cambridge Journal of
Economics, Vol. 33, pp. 211-232.
Strom, D. L., Sears, K. L., Kelly, K. M. (2014), “Work Engagement The Roles of Organizational
Justice and Leadership Style in Predicting Engagement Among Employees” Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 71-82.
Sweeney, P. D., McFarlin, D. B. (1993), “Workers evaluations of the “ends” and the “means”: An
examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 55, pp. 23–40.
Sweeney, P. D., McFarlin, D. B. (1997), “Process and outcome: Gender differences in the
assessment of justice”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 83-98.
Thibaut, J., Walker, L. (1975), “Procedural justice: a psychological analysis”. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tyler, T. R. (1994), “Psychological models of the justice motive”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 850-863.
16
Unioncamere-Ministero del Lavoro, Sistema informativo Excelsior (2008), Imprese sociali. I
fabbisogni formativi delle imprese sociali per il 2008. Roma: Kataconsulting.
VanYperen, N. W., van den Berg, A. E., Willering, M. C. (1999), “Towards a better understanding
of the link between participation in decision-making and organizational citizenship behaviour: A
multilevel analysis”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 377–
392.
Wang, X., Liao, J., Xia, D., 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.
Zainalipour, H., Fini, A. A. S., Mirkamali, S. M. (2010), “A study of relationship between
organizational justice and job satisfaction among teachers in Bandar Abbas middle school”,
Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 5, pp.1986-1990.
17

Download Report